Jeb Hensarling Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 07/22/11

Podcast of the address: Download MP3 for PODCAST || FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT BELOW. || Download Video MPEG Video || MP4 Video

Washington (Jul 22) Delivering the Weekly Republican Address, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) discusses Republicans’ continued efforts to create a better environment for private sector job creation and address America’s debt crisis. Earlier this week, the Republican-led House passed ‘cut, cap, and balance’ legislation that cuts spending, promotes private sector job growth, and avoids a government default. The measure received bipartisan backing in the House and strong support from the American people. Rep. Hensarling is chairman of the House Republican Conference. Following is the full text of the address.

“Hello, I’m Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas and I serve as the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

“You know, unfortunately, every day we hear about some friend or some neighbor who just got laid off or still can’t find a job. The Obama Administration promised its ‘stimulus’ plan would help keep unemployment below eight percent. And instead, unemployment has been above eight percent for 29 straight months, the longest such stretch since the Great Depression. 14 million of our fellow citizens remain out of work. So is it any surprise that the number one question in America remains, ‘where are the jobs?’

“You know, by and large, it’s a lack of confidence in our nation’s future that’s holding our economy back, whether it’s uncertainty about our national debt, uncertainty about taxes, uncertainty about all the regulations and mandates that just keep pouring out of Washington. Small business owners are pleading for the government to stop the reckless spending, balance the budget, and then just get out of the way.

“That’s why the Republican-led House is focused on removing government barriers to private-sector job growth – the kind of growth the President promised with his ‘stimulus’ but failed to deliver. As part of our Plan for America’s Job Creators, we’ve passed a series of jobs bills to cut wasteful Washington spending, rein in needless red tape, and increase American energy production. Our plan includes the budget, written by Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee that actually pays down our debt over time and paves a path to prosperity and economic growth.
“We Americans are the best entrepreneurs and workers in the world. Given a level playing field, we can compete and win against anyone, anywhere, anytime. But not as long as the policies coming out of Washington remain harmful to jobs. What we need to do is get government out of the way so our economy can get back to creating jobs.

“That’s what makes this debate we’re having about America’s fiscal future so important. Our government has gotten so big, so expensive it’s keeping our economy from recovering as it should. Job creators are fearful that our $14 trillion debt is going to lead to higher taxes, which could harm their businesses and destroy even more jobs.

“Just this week the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, when he was asked what’s the ‘single biggest impediment to job growth,’ he answered: ‘The U.S. government.’ He went on to say: ‘If we don’t lower spending and if we don’t deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes ... [and ] when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.’ This sentiment is echoed by small business people and entrepreneurs from coast to coast.

The American people have long since said, ‘It’s time to quit spending money we don’t have. It’s time to stop borrowing 42 cents on the dollar – much of it from the Chinese – and then sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.’

“Credit rating agencies have spelled out the consequences of failing to heed this message, warning that even if we’re able to avoid any type of default, that may very well downgrade our status unless we take serious action to get our fiscal house in order.

“That’s why the House this week passed ‘cut, cap, and balance’ legislation.

“First, the legislation immediately cuts government spending to 2008 levels. You know, I just haven’t really met anybody who thought government was too small before President Obama became president.

“Second, it puts caps in place to ensure government spending is put on a glide path to be no more than 20 percent of our economy, as it has been on average since World War II.

“Last, but not least, it amends the Constitution to balance the budget once and for all. Every family, small business, and almost every state has to balance their budget. Why should the federal government be any different? And our plan accomplishes this without imposing job-crushing tax hikes.

“Now unfortunately, the Democratic-led Senate tabled this common-sense measure despite the fact it received bipartisan backing in the House and overwhelming support from the American people.

“You know, the Democrats who run Washington are pretty good at telling us what they’re against, but they have yet to put a plan on the table that tells us what they’re for. Speeches and press releases won’t do the trick. It’s time for some action. Senator Reid, if you don’t like our plan to deal with the debt crisis, where is your plan? Mr. President, if you don’t like our plan to deal with the debt crisis, where is your plan?

“If we’re going to avoid any type of default and downgrade – if we’re going to resume job creation in America – the president and his allies need to listen to the people and work with Republicans to cut up the credit cards once and for all.

“It’s time to ‘cut, cap, and balance.’ That’s what will give us jobs, hope, and opportunity. Thank you for listening.”

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: HouseConference

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

AUDIO / VIDEO FILES CREDIT: The House Republican Conference - Digital Communications visual.media@mail.house.gov 202-225-5439

Bob Corker Praises House for Passing Cut, Cap, and Balance, Calls on Senate to Do the Same VIDEO

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., an original co-sponsor of S.1340, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011, praised the House for passing their version of the bill and called on the Senate to do the same.

“This legislation puts on paper what I’ve been pushing from day one of the 112th Congress: we need spending cuts now, a long-term plan like the CAP Act to put a fiscal straitjacket on Congress, and a constitutional amendment to keep Congress from falling off the wagon as it relates to over-spending,” Corker said. “Now, more than 813 days since the Senate passed a budget, we must put enforceable limits on all future spending in a way that encourages economic growth and demonstrates to the American people and the world that we will get our debt and deficits under control.”

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, S.1340, would dramatically reduce federal spending as a share of the economy over the next decade by setting enforceable limits on all annual federal spending similar to the Corker CAP Act. It would significantly reduce non-defense discretionary spending in 2012 and require passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which Corker and all Senate Republicans have supported separately in S.J. Res 10.

About the Corker CAP Act:

Introduced by Sen. Corker in December 2010, the CAP Act, S. 245, would set an across-the-board, binding cap on all federal spending. The fiscal straitjacket created by the CAP Act would result in $7.6 trillion less spending over a 10 year period. Specifically, the bill would:

(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending – discretionary and mandatory – to a declining percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and

(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and

(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive “off-budget” distinction for Social Security – providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.

Senate sponsors of the CAP Act include: Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Representatives Jim Cooper (D-TN-5) and Jimmy Duncan (R-TN-2) have introduced a companion version of the bill in the House, which is cosponsored by Diane Black (R-TN-6), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-7), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-4), Stephen Fincher (R-TN-8), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN-3), Jim Renacci (R-OH-16) and Phil Roe (R-TN-1).

###

TEXT CREDIT: United States Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee Washington, D.C. United States Senate Dirksen Senate Office Building SD-185 Washington, DC 20510 Main: 202-224-3344 Fax: 202-228-0566

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: senatorcorker

Cut, Cap and Balance: Today The American People Will Now Know Where We Stand VIDEO

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Friday regarding a vote on a Democrat proposal to table the Cut, Cap and Balance bill. The Cut, Cap and Balance bill would cut government spending now, cap it in the future and approve a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget:

“Five months ago, President Obama unveiled the only concrete statement he’s made to date on our nation’s debt crisis: A 10-year budget plan so preposterous, so unequal to the moment, that it was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 97-0.

“The President’s response to this crisis was to pretend it didn’t exist.

“Two months later, the President doubled down on his vision for a future of debt by demanding that Congress raise the debt limit without any cuts to spending or any plan to rein it in.

“It was a total abdication of leadership, and it wasn’t sustainable.

“So over the past several weeks the President has been doing his best impersonation of a fiscal moderate. He’s talked about balance and left it to others to fill in the blanks.

“And here’s what Democrats in Congress have proposed as a solution: More spending and higher taxes — as the solution to a debt crisis.

“Just yesterday, with the clock ticking, we heard reports of a `volcanic’ eruption among Democrats at the suggestion that we should solve this crisis by focusing on reducing Washington spending.

“The solution to this crisis is not complicated: If you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less money.

“This isn’t rocket science.

“We could solve this problem this morning if Democrats would let us vote on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill — and join us in backing this legislation that Republicans support.

“But the first step in solving a problem is to admit you have one, and too many Democrats refuse to admit that Washington has a spending problem.

“That’s why Republicans have insisted that we focus on spending in this debate.

“The reason we’ve got a $14 trillion debt is because no matter how much money Washington has, it always spends more — and the only way to cure the problem is to stop enabling it.

“Americans get it.

“And I want to thank every American who’s spoken out in favor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan.

“Today the American people will now know where we stand.

“A vote to table this bill is a vote to ignore this crisis even longer.

“A vote to get on this bill is a vote for getting our house in order

“So I would urge my Democrat colleagues one more time to re-consider their position.

“Join us in support of a future we can afford.”

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Washington Office 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499

VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanLeader

Rand Paul Votes In Favor Of Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Sen. Rand Paul and his Senate colleagues were given the opportunity to vote on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, following its passage in the House of Representatives. While this proposal for dealing with the debt crisis failed to pass, Sen. Paul, an original co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, issued the following statement:

"Today 46 Republican Senators joined 234 congressmen of both parties in voting for the only plan that raises the debt ceiling and solves our debt problem - the Cut, Cap and Balance Act."

"This vital bill has the support of nearly 70 percent of Americans and would finally ensure a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. What it does not yet have is the support of Senate Democrats, who are apparently willing to risk a debt crisis to avoid balancing the budget and end their spending addiction."

"This fight is not over. We have ten more days during which the American people must make their voices heard to Senate Democrats to allow passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

"This Act would help restore trust in the American people that their Congress can balance a budget and return our nation on the path to prosperity." ###

TEXT CREDIT: Rand Paul | United States Senator Washington, DC 208 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-4343

IMAGE CREDIT: SenatorRandPaul

Despite approaching deadline for raising the debt ceiling, President Obama has yet to produce a concrete plan to address our nation's colossal debt

Despite the fast-approaching deadline for raising the debt ceiling, President Obama has yet to produce a concrete plan to address our nation's colossal debt. Meanwhile, his failed economic policies have left individuals and businesses struggling. Senate Republicans hope the president will stop obstructing real reform and work with Republicans to put in place responsible economic policies to reduce the debt and create an environment where businesses can grow and create jobs.

VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanSenators

TEXT CREDIT: Senate Republican Conference 405 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Telephone: (202) 224-2764 Fax: (202) 228-4276

Congressman Phil Gingrey Applauds House Passage of Cut, Cap, and Balance Act

Washington - Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) today issued the following statement in support of the House of Representatives passing the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act: “I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 and I applaud both my Republican and Democrat colleagues in the House for supporting this legislation to fundamentally change our government’s spending habits. By the end of this year, our national debt will grow larger than our entire economy. The actions set forth in the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act will help to stabilize our economy by enacting long-term spending cuts without raising taxes on over-burdened and hardworking Americans. At a time when struggling families are sacrificing to balance their resources, I am pleased that our federal government is finally doing the same. I urge the President, as well as my Democrat colleagues in the Senate, to immediately take up and approve this historic legislation.”

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011, by a vote of 234 to 190.

###

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: gingrey.house.gov/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, July 19, 2011 Contact: Brooke Sammon 202-225-2931

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced the American Land Act

This week, Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced the American Land Act. This bill would require the Administration to open up nearly 1/4 of the land currently owned by the federal government for sale to the American people. The federal government currently owns 27% (623 million acres) of the total land in the United States. This land is larger than the countries of France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium put together. The proceeds from the sales—potentially $200 billion or more--would be directly applied to reduce the federal budget deficit.

“It is time for the federal government to let Americans own American land. The government cannot afford its massive estate; we need to give up some of our assets so that we can pay our bills, “said Poe. “Allowing Americans to buy American land would provide a way to generate new revenue without new taxes, create new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Transferring ownership of natural resources to the public would also be a more efficient way to utilize our natural assets. This is a common sense solution to reducing the national debt.”

Allowing Americans to purchase 24.3% (174 million acres) of this land would have the potential to generate up to $200 billion or more to pay off the federal budget deficit. The bill does not authorize the sale of land owned by the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

###

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Congressman Ted Poe, Serving the 2nd District of Texas Washington, D.C. Office 430 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-6565 (202) 225-5547 fax (866) 425-6565 toll free

Mike Coffman Statement on Cut, Cap & Balance Debate

(WASHINGTON) – U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), chairman of the Congressional Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus, issued the following statement as the U.S. House of Representatives debates H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. “The greatest threat to our national security is the reckless out of control spending in Washington, D.C. The power to continue to spend money that we don’t have must be stripped away from congress and the only way to permanently accomplish that is by amending our constitution with a balanced budget requirement.”

“Linking the passage of the balance budget amendment, along with meaningful spending cuts, is the only way to get conservatives like myself to vote for an increase in the debt limit.”

“The balanced budget amendment is not popular among so many Washington politicians who see their power base as their ability to spend without limit in order to buy votes for the next election. Even if the balanced budget amendment doesn’t pass this time around we will have planted the seed for its future passage as our debt crisis deepens.”

# # #

TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Mike Coffman: Washington Office • 1222 Longworth HOB • Washington, D.C. 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-7882 • Fax: (202) 226-4623

IMAGE CREDIT: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.

Jeb Hensarling Responds to President Obama's Threat to Veto Cut, Cap and Balance Legislation

WASHINGTON – House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today issued the following response to President Obama’s threat to veto Cut, Cap and Balance legislation the House is scheduled to vote on this week. “I find it incredibly ironic that President Obama is one of the few Americans who think we don’t need a constitutional amendment ‘to do our jobs.’ The point of cutting up the credit cards in order to raise the debt ceiling isn’t to meet his tax and spend demands; it’s to force him to stop spending money we don’t have.

“Since he took office the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion and here we are, days away from default, and the president still hasn’t given us a plan for how we’re going to tackle this spending-driven debt crisis.

“It took the U.S. from 1776 to 1992 to accumulate the same amount of debt that President Obama accumulated in two and a half years. This is a spending-driven debt crisis, and the solution must be to control spending, not to raise taxes.

“Thomas Jefferson regretted that an amendment to ensure we paid our bills each year was not included in our Constitution. There has never been a more urgent time than now. Our debt crisis is a legitimate threat to the future of our children and grandchildren, and extraordinary problems call for extraordinary action. America cannot afford to wait any longer.”

###

TEXT CREDIT: House Republican Conference Press Office email (conferencepress@mail.house.gov)

IMAGE CREDIT: Jeb Hensarling Washington, DC. Office 129 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-3484 Fax: 202-226-4888

Marco Rubio Face the Nation 07/17/11 VIDEO

Marco Rubio: America's problem is debt, not debt limit

2:06 July 17, 2011 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) spoke with Bob Schieffer on what he truly feels caused the country's current debt crisis and the provisions he feels necessary to be included in a compromise for him to vote on raising the debt ceiling.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."

Jim DeMint Meet The Press 07/17/11 VIDEO TEXT

DAVID GREGORY:
Was Senator DeMint, what-- what's going on here? I mean so many people I talk to are frankly disgusted with Washington. You know, you have on the one side people saying that-- that Republicans are-- are just crazy. That they won't negotiate. That they're being unreasonable. That they're denying the prospect of a default. Michelle Bachmann saying it's a misnomer when the Fed chief says it would be economic calamity.

And on the other side you-- you know, you've got Republicans saying, "Look, somebody's got to draw a line in the sand here. It's-- it's the Democrats who have run up-- the debt since President Obama got into office." But the reality is nobody is really willing to compromise and to make a deal.

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
Well, David, we certainly are willing to compromise. We're willing to give the president an increase in the debt limit. And you'll see the House pass that bill this-- this week. But Senator Durbin and 20 other-- Democrats in the Senator are on record supporting a balanced budget amendment. And that is a place that we have to get to.

But we need to realize, setting all politics aside, that our country is on course for a financial disaster. We can't take another $10 trillion in debt that the president has proposed. So it is absurd to say that we cannot agree that sometime in the next decade that we have to stop spending more than we're bringing in. You'll see in the next week Republicans are more than willing to work with the president.

DAVID GREGORY:
But--

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
But the only pro-- proposal that the president has sent to Congress, David, is a budget that increases the debt another--

DAVID GREGORY:
All right.

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
--$10--

DAVID GREGORY:
But-- but--

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
--trillion.

DAVID GREGORY:
--Senator DeMint.

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
Not the--

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:
Let's be realistic. Bottom line here. If a balanced budget amendment is not passed, which it-- you heard Senator Durbin say it's not going to be passed, will Republicans still vote to raise the debt ceiling? And if not, are you prepared for the consequences on this economy and for the country?

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
Well, I hope the president won't take us through that. And I hope Senator Durbin won't. But we've got to draw a line in the-- in the sand now, because the day of reckoning is going to come. And the longer we put it off, the bigger the problems are going to be for our country.

I mean Moody's, Standard and Poor, these agencies are telling us if we increase this debt limit without credible and long-term deficit reduction, that they're going to lower our ratings. That means it's going to be harder and more expensive to borrow money and we can't borrow another $10 trillion that the president's proposed.

DAVID GREGORY:
Right. But Senator--

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
Again--

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY:
--I'm sorry. I'm not getting an answer, though. But what-- what's going to happen? How does this end? I know what your position is. How does this end? Are you saying that you would put the country into default by not raising the debt ceiling unless you get this balanced budget amendment?

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
Well, David, we're not going to default. And if you listen to your previous guest, he said we won't meet some obligations, but he didn't say we were going to default. I don't want to put the country through that, but the fact is Republicans and Democrats have been irresponsible. They've brought our debt to the point where we literally can't borrow much more money without bankrupting our country.

So now is the time for the president, Senator Durbin and the Democrats to work with us and at least agree that we can make some cuts now and-- and cap spending over 10 years and let the states decide if sometime over the next decade that we'll balance our budget.

DAVID GREGORY:
You know, Sen--

SENATOR JIM DEMINT:
That's hardly a radical idea.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: Meet The Press

Frank Wolf calls on Senate to reject confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to head National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)

Washington, D.C. - Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department’s counterterrorism programs, today called on the Senate to reject the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to head the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). In a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, Wolf said he believed Obama nominee Matt Olsen’s actions as the director of the Obama Administration’s Guantanamo Review Task Force raise serious questions about his judgment and ability to ensure unbiased analysis.

Wolf, who has a long history of work on terrorism issues, cited three separate instances of concern about questionable decisions and statements by Olsen regarding the release of terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to meet the Obama Administration’s goal of closing the prison within a year of the president taking office.

Wolf referred to evidence that the task force led by Olsen altered some detainee assessments, overturning Department of Defense (DOD) assessments, to clear and expedite the release of a large number of detainees. Wolf indicated DOD believes that some of these detainees have since returned to terrorism since their release.

Wolf questioned Olsen’s judgment under pressure from the Obama Administration to re-classify detainee threat levels. "The director of the NCTC must be able to withstand political pressure," Wolf said, "and that is not something I have seen in Mr. Olsen’s actions."

Wolf also said he has evidence that Olsen was not forthright with him and his staff in a briefing about the effort to release a number of Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in 2009.

"Leading the NCTC is a serious responsibility and requires a director that is exceptionally experienced, forthcoming, trustworthy and has strong judgment," wrote Wolf.

He added: "I do not question Mr. Olsen’s professional qualifications for this position, but from my observations of his recent leadership positions, I believe that he lacks the judgment to lead the NCTC."

The full text of Wolf’s letter is available below:

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I write in opposition to Mr. Matthew Olsen's nomination to serve as director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is located in my congressional district. I believe Mr. Olsen exercised questionable judgment and made misleading statements while serving as the special counselor to the attorney general and executive director of the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force, where he led the interagency process to implement the president's executive order that led to the release of a number of dangerous terrorist detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Dozens of high risk terrorist detainees recommended for release by the task force led by Mr. Olsen were released abroad to dangerously unstable countries, including Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As then-ranking member and now chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee -- which funds the Justice Department, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service and which helped fund the NCTC's predecessor, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center -- I was disturbed by decisions and statements made by Mr. Olsen in 2009 while he led the task force. These concerns have deepened based on new information that has come to light in recent articles from Newsweek, The Washington Post, The National Journal and The Weekly Standard. These reports have raised troubling questions about Mr. Olsen's leadership of the task force and his actions in response to White House influence.

Additionally, my personal interactions with Mr. Olsen, as well as these subsequent news reports, lead me to conclude that he was not forthright with the Congress and may have changed detainee assessments under political pressure from administration officials. I believe these are troubling concerns which deserve a thorough investigation and should give the Senate serious pause as it considers who should lead the NCTC. I have visited the NCTC on several occasions and have met with a number of its former directors, as well as the former and current directors of National Intelligence. I have seen firsthand the critical work that is done by the center and fully understand the need for an independent, capable and principled director to lead the operation.

There are three concerns that have led me to oppose Mr. Olsen's nomination. First, it is clear to me that in order to achieve the president's promise to close Guantanamo Bay during his first year in office, Mr. Olsen may have been susceptible to the immense political pressure placed on the interagency task force to re-classify detainee threat levels. Second, it has become clear that Mr. Olsen's task force may have altered some detainee assessments -- overturning Department of Defense assessments -- in order to clear and expedite the release of a large number of detainees. Third, I have recently learned that Mr. Olsen was not forthright me and my staff about the effort to release a number of Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in 2009. Attached is a white paper that addresses these concerns in greater detail.

Leading the NCTC is a serious responsibility and requires a director that is exceptionally experienced, forthcoming, trustworthy and has good judgment. The analyses and recommendations provided by the NCTC have direct bearing on the safety of the American people. The director must be able to withstand political pressure from all sides, facilitate the complete and straightforward sharing of information and ensure unbiased analysis. I do not question Mr. Olsen's professional qualifications for this position, but from my observations of his recent leadership positions, I believe that he lacks the judgment to lead the NCTC.

I am willing to testify about my concerns during your committee's upcoming confirmation hearing for Mr. Olsen. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-225-5136 to discuss any of this information.

Frank Wolf Member of Congress

Washington Office 241 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5136 (202) 225-0437 fax

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Congressman Frank R. Wolf

John Boehner With Economy in Trouble, It’s Time for Democrats to Get Serious About Cutting Spending VIDEO

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today made the following remarks at a press conference with Republican leaders regarding the White House request for an increase in the debt limit:

“All year long, we have led on the big issues facing our country. The House-passed budget, written by Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee, I think set the standard for serious debate. We’ve passed or pushed for bill after bill that would create jobs, by easing the burdens of regulations, expanding exports, and increasing the supply of American energy.

“In the debt limit debate, our goals are simple: no one wants the United States to default on our obligations. We won’t see real economic growth without a serious plan to deal with our deficit and debt. Yesterday, at the White House, Secretary Geithner echoed both of those points. Our stand on the debt limit has been clear: there can be no tax hikes because tax hikes destroy jobs; we need real spending cuts and real spending cuts that will exceed the amount of increase in the debt limit; and we need real reforms to restrain the growth of spending in future years, like spending caps and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“Listen, we’re in the 4th quarter here. Time and time again Republicans have offered serious proposals to cut spending and address these issues, and I think it’s time for the Democrats to get serious as well. We asked the president to lead. We asked him to put forward a plan – not a speech, a real plan – and he hasn't. We will.”

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: JohnBoehner

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact: H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

Orrin Hatch Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 07/16/11

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT: Good morning. I’m Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Our nation is in the midst of one of the most critical debates in generations. It is a debate about the size, scope, and shape of our national government. It’s a debate over whether we act responsibly so our children and grandchildren aren’t left carrying the burden of unsustainable debt.

While the details of this debate change by the day, the fundamentals are clear. President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress refuse to come up with a legitimate plan to confront our run-away spending that has left our country over $14 trillion in debt. He refuses to reform our near bankrupt entitlement programs -- all while pushing job-killing tax hikes.

We’ve been down this road before, and Republicans will not go down it again. In 1990, Congress and the President struck a deficit reduction deal that combined spending cuts with tax increases. Unfortunately, while the tax hikes remained, the spending restraint did not, and our debt has only marched higher.

The solution to a spending crisis is not tax increases. Yet, Washington has consistently demonstrated that it cannot control its urge to spend. That is why the only long-term solution is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Only by restoring constitutional restraints on the ability of Congress to spend, can we constrain the growth of the federal government.

Think of how different our fiscal picture would be if we’d passed one in 1997. After a fierce debate, the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that I introduced was defeated by just one vote in the United States Senate.

Instead of sending that amendment to the states for ratification, and addressing the need for fiscal balance, fourteen years later, our nation faces a debt crisis of epic proportions. Our national debt has gone from roughly $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. That's more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

And that debt keeps growing. According to Congress's nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, the nation's debt could reach an astonishing 101 percent of domestic product in a decade -- with interest payments that could reach over a trillion dollars a year.

The situation has only gotten worse after the Obama administration. In his first two years in office, discretionary spending has skyrocketed by 84 percent, including the failed stimulus, with spending reaching 25 percent of our nation's economic output. We haven't seen spending levels this high since World War II.

This soaring debt is the number one issue I hear about from the people in my home state of Utah. As our economy continues to flounder, and families across Utah and all of America are forced to cut back, Washington refuses to make the tough choices that will bring down our massive debt. They know that we need immediate spending cuts; they know we need to cap spending; they know we need a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Next week we have an opportunity to set things right. In the Senate, all 47 Republican senators back a Balanced Budget Amendment I've introduced with my colleagues Mike Lee and John Cornyn. It would require the president to submit, and Congress to pass, a balanced budget every year. And most importantly, it limits spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product and requires supermajorities in both houses of Congress to raise taxes.

Unfortunately, last week the White House dismissed a Balanced Budget Amendment saying it is not good for the economy, and that our debt isn't a constitutional issue.

The American people know better. A Balanced Budget Amendment is essential for our economy, and our debt is definitely a constitutional issue.

After all, the constitution belongs to the people, who determine what is a constitutional issue -- not the White House. And if the debt isn't a 'constitutional issue,' why is it that every state in the union but Vermont has a constitutional balanced budget requirement?

This kind of strong budgetary reform would put us on a path to fiscal health and would prevent this White House or any future White House from forcing more debt on the American people.

The only reason this Administration doesn't want a constitutional amendment is because they want to keep spending the American people's money. And the only reason congressional Democrats would refuse to pass it, is because they know the people of this country would rise up and quickly ratify it.

A balanced budget amendment makes sense; its time has more than come. Now, Congress must act. Thank you for listening and may God continue to bless America.

VIDEO IMAGE and TEXT CREDIT: gopweeklyaddress

Paul Ryan on the need to control spending and create jobs VIDEO TEXT

Mika Brzezinski: Joining us now from Capitol Hill Paul, Republican Congressman from Wisconsin and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan, who we like very much.

Joe Scarborough: He has made tough choices. You cannot say Paul Ryan has not shown courage.

Mika Brzezinski: He has shown courage.

Congressman Ryan: The feeling is mutual.

Mika Brzezinski: Paul, are there no tax modifications that you could sell to your base for the sake of your ultimate goal and the country—and that is to save trillions of dollars and avoid a default?

Congressman Ryan: Mika, take a look at our budget, and I think you've read our budget, we've proposed a deal. We say, let's go after all these loopholes to lower tax rates to clean up our tax code.

Look GE made a lot of money, but paid no taxes. UPS, another big company, paid a 34 percent tax rate while their competitors overseas paid something like 24 percent. Something's wrong with our tax system. It's making us uncompetitive. The Republican budget says, clear out all these loopholes, to lower rates, to provide for economic growth. We do agree with loophole closing. We don't want to make it a situation where it's used not to cut spending or to take pressure off spending cuts, but to fix our tax code to grow the economy.

You've got to deal with spending; that's the big issue Mika. Putting taxes aside, if we don't start getting spending under control, we will have a debt crisis. We see what happens with those things by looking at what's going on in Europe. We don't want those kinds of problems here. Spending is the problem and that's what we want to keep focused on.

Mika Brzezinski: Okay, that sounds reasonable.

Joe Scarborough: Very reasonable.

Mika Brzezinski: Now what about some of those tax loopholes being closed and other modifications to the tax code to raise money to put against the debt? Would that be okay?

Congressman Ryan: Well that's what I was just talking about. See the thing is, we believe tax reform is a critical ingredient to economic growth and job creation and we don't want to have deficit increasing tax reform. We don't want to do tax reform that raises the deficit, and so in order to do tax reform without increasing the deficit you need to use these loophole closers to finance tax reform because that's critical for job creation. That means we've got to focus on the spending side of the ledger to deal with cutting spending and getting the deficit down.

You see the ingredient we subscribe to, meaning the economic doctrine, is economic growth and spending controls. Those are the two things you want to get this fiscal situation under control because with economic growth people go from collecting unemployment to working and paying taxes, revenues go up, and you cut spending to get spending down. That's what we're trying to do.

Mika Brzezinski: I know you haven't seen a budget, so I don't want to hear there's no budget, they haven't put one on the table. Try another answer without using those words. Does it appear that from what the President is saying that he is willing to give on some major issues that are very challenging when it comes to his base and that deal with some of the things that you're talking about?

Congressman Ryan: I think you're talking about the "grand bargain" or such as it existed. And he did put some Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid issues on the table. The numbers that we're thrown around, I'm not so sure they added quite up. I think it was more of a, two dollars for spending cuts for one dollar of tax increase, closer to one-to-one perhaps, but it never got to three-to-one as far as I understand it.

We never saw a paper from the White House on this by the way. But the point is, the kinds of things they were talking about in entitlements were not their structural reforms that actually fix these problems and make them permanently solvent and that get our debt under control. They do take money from those programs and they buy you temporary relief. They would buy you a few years. They weren't the kinds of structural reforms that actually save Medicare, make Medicaid solvent, prevent the bankruptcy of Social Security. They weren't the real structural reforms. They were kind of the nickel-and-dime stuff that saves money, but don't fix the problem.

Joe Scarborough: Paul, as you know I've been a big fan of yours, not because of what you've done when the Democrats were in power, but because of what you've done when the Republicans were in power. In fact you'll remember I wrote about you I think in about 2003 or 2004 in a book, and you've always made the tough decisions. You've always faced the reality of this crisis, which gets worse by the year.

But you do understand because of the district that you come from—a swing district that the Democrats usually win in Presidential elections—you've got a Democratic President, you've got a Democratic Senate, and if you're going to get a compromise that works. I'd love to get to a $4 trillion number—you may not be able to get rid of some of the loopholes while lowering the rates.

Is it a possibility—we're not asking you to negotiate here—is it in the realm of possibility that in exchange for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security cuts that some of the Republican Conference in the House would say 'okay listen, we don't like it, but we're realistic. We' will get rid of the loopholes and keep the rates where they are—don't raise them, but we're not going to be able to lower them'. Is that a possible compromise?

Congressman Ryan: I don't see it happening Joe, only because the kinds of entitlement reforms that were offered were not real, fundamental entitlement reforms. Some of them were fairly structural; most of them were cutting providers and cutting benefits here and there. They weren't the kinds of structural reforms that actually fix our problem, like we proposed in our budget.

We want to permanently save Medicare and make it solvent, we want to put Medicaid on a sustainable footing so we pay off its unfunded liabilities—we have about $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. We want to put in place a plan that pretty much takes care of that, so we can calm down the credit markets and never have a debt crisis.

The kinds of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts and reforms that the President was being willing to offer are not the kinds of things that would have ultimately prevented a debt crisis. If we're in the area of talking about what's necessary to actually permanently fix these problems, preempt a debt crisis, and get this economy going then, yeah I want to negotiate on that. But those were not the kinds of reforms that we were being presented with.

All I saw coming from this "grand bargain," from my own personal perspective, were tax increases ultimately that would have hurt job creation and the economy, and not the kinds of structural reforms that would have fixed this problem and prevented a debt crisis. It would have bought us a couple of years, but it wouldn't have saved a generation.

John Heilemann: Congressman just to be clear, the reason you guys never saw paper on that stuff from the President was because you guys shut off conversation before there was a chance.

Congressman Ryan: I wasn't in the room. I wasn't a part of this conversation so I can't tell you.

John Heilemann: But your Conference made it clear when the President said that part of the "grand bargain" from his point of view had to be the repealing of the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners after 2012 and into 2013. That was just a no-go for you guys. That was the issue that made it impossible to have any other conversations on this.

Congressman Ryan: Yes, because here's why: I'm not sure who asked me that question, but we don't think raising tax rates in 2013 is helping the economy today. Not only is the actual rate going to 39.6 percent, when you take all the other stuff that were in Obamacare and everything else, the effective top marginal tax rate goes to 44.8 percent.

Here's the problem: 54 percent of workers in America get their jobs from these kinds of businesses that file as individuals, subchapter S corporations, partnerships. One-in-four people in America get their jobs from an S corporation. We are raising their top tax rate to 44.8 percent in 2013.

Their competitors aren't taxed like that. In Wisconsin we compete against Canadians, they're getting taxed at 16 percent. We're going to raise the taxes on our businesses, on the job creators to almost 45 percent? You throw the Wisconsin income tax rate on top of that and we're taxing them more than 50 percent.

We see it as a job killer and more importantly, yeah these taxes hit in 2013, they are going to hurt jobs today because businesses look forward—they're forward looking—and when they see this massive tax increase coming, they're not going to hire today, and so we think it's a job killer.

John Heilemann: I understand all of that Congressman, but the bottom-line is that because any kind of a substantial bargain is now off the table, the likeliest outcome we're now looking at is something like the McConnell plan, where we're going to have a debt-ceiling increase with no big changes. The changes that are being proposed, although they don't go as far as you would like to go, they're still much bigger than what we're going to get now—which is nothing—and at the end of 2012 the Bush tax cuts are going to expire anyway, and that's an argument that you guys may lose politically.

Don't you think it's kind of a mistake to not have gotten what you could get now, rather than ending up where we're going to end up where you guys could get a lot less. It just doesn't seem like politically this was a smart play from the Republican point of view.

Congressman Ryan: Well I'm not looking at what's good politics, I'm looking at what's good policy, and I really believe its bad policy to stack a bunch of tax increases. By the way, these tax increases are hurting jobs today, but this debt is hurting jobs today, and I don't think we're going to get nothing out of this debt limit agreement. We wouldn't do that.

We need to get spending cuts and I think we're going to get a down payment on spending cuts. I think we're going to get spending cuts on debt and we're going to help get the debt down. Now will our spending cuts be as high as we're asking for? Probably not, and if that's the case, then the debt limit won't be increased as much as the President wants it to be, and then we're going to have to figure out what to do on the rest of it because we will have another episode to deal with before these 18 months are out.

Mika Brzezinski: You know as this has been covered over the last couple of days, I think the optics, some would say, the Republicans look a little difficult. And that may not be the case, because you made a point about the reforms that you feel are being put on the table on the side of the President not being the right ones—not really saving, not really having the effect. If they were more appropriate, would then some sort of tax increases be on the table?

Congressman Ryan: I'm not going to get into all these hypothetical's Mika – I don't see the purpose of it. I don't think it's worthwhile to negotiate to media on such things.

Here's the problem Mika: put taxes aside, put the whole tax increase issue aside, we still have to cut a lot of spending, much more than what's being talked about right now, and the President is just unwilling to go anywhere close to the kinds of spending cuts that we're going to have to have if we want to avert a debt crisis.

Look, $4 trillion I don't believe is going to do it. I really don't think it's going to cut it. The President is proposing we spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. With the debt limit increase we're saying let's spend $43.5 trillion. That's not asking a lot over a ten-year period. It will be a small down-payment on what will be necessary to prevent a debt crisis, and the President won't even do that. What we have here is a lack of leadership from the White House on what we know is mathematically is necessary to fix this problem, and that is scary to me.

Joe Scarborough: Alright, Congressman Paul Ryan, thank you so much for being with us.

Mika Brzezinski: Nice to see you. Good luck with everything.

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan Washington, DC Office. 1233 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3031 Fax: (202) 225-3393

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: Morning Joe: MSNBC

Ronald Reagan Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget

April 29, 1982 Good evening: My fellow Americans, you know the most important goal that all of us share tonight is economic recovery -- to see our factories reopening their gates, to see the unemployed return to their jobs, and every American enjoy the fruits of prosperity. To get our economy moving again, it's imperative that we enact a Federal budget that will bring down deficits and bring down interest rates.

I had hoped that when I addressed you tonight, it would be to give you the details of a bipartisan agreement on a budget and revenue plan for 1983. As you know, yesterday marked the end of a long series of discussions to help reach such an agreement. They ended, despite our best efforts to achieve a fair compromise. But before I discuss these talks and our plans for the future, let me give the background that led up to them.

In our budget proposal, we had continued the process we started last year of trying to get control of runaway government spending. Deficits over the last few decades have been literally built into the Federal structure. The rate of increase in spending was 17 percent when we took office. There's no way that government can pay for increases at that rate without gigantic tax increases each year or borrowing and adding to the national debt.

Now, this latter course has been followed for so many years that we now have a trillion-dollar debt. To give you some idea of how much a trillion is, if we started paying off the debt at a billion dollars a year, it would take a thousand years to wipe it out.

Now, if I may, let me take you back a little. In 1977, when the previous administration took office, inflation was 4.8 percent. It rose steadily, and in 1979 and '80 we had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation. Unemployment started to increase, and by 1980 we were in a recession with nearly 8 million unemployed, inflation at 12.4 percent, and interest rates at 21\1/2\ percent. As those interest rates continued, home construction and automobiles were hard hit, because few could afford to take out a mortgage or buy a car on time. Unemployment continued to increase.

The 1981 budget was already in place when our administration began, and while we managed to effect several billions of dollars savings during the balance of the fiscal year, there was nothing we could do but set our sights on the 1982 budget, which would be our first. We had to reduce the built-in rate of increase. At the same time, we had to reduce the share of the people's earnings the government was taking in taxes.

Now, this may sound strange in view of the increased spending, and it was contrary to the philosophy of the Democratic leadership. But high taxes, destroying incentive, had contributed to reduced productivity and a reduction in savings, which left us without the capital we needed for industrial expansion. And because government always finds a need for whatever money it gets, the cost of government continued to go up.

Between 1976 and 1981, Federal tax revenues increased by $300 billion. Deficits ran $318 billion. There was no way we could get the rate of spending down to where it should be in one year. But our economic recovery program did manage to reduce the rate of increase in spending to nearly half of what it had been. We also proposed a 3-year program of tax rate reduction for individuals and for business. You helped us get both the reductions in spending and the tax reductions by letting your elected representatives know you wanted them.

During the debate on our economic program, we stated many times that there would have to be a second installment of budget reductions in 1983. That built-in, automatic spending increase I spoke of would otherwise give us a budget of $827 billion in '83, $918 billion in 1984, and more than a trillion in 1985.

What is our situation now, and how well have we done with our economic recovery program? Well, we're still in a recession, and unemployment has continued to go up, particularly in those areas affected by the troubles of the automobile and construction industries. Farmers, too, are hurt by the high interest rates. They borrow to plant and pay back at harvest, but that doesn't work when interest rates remain at too high a level. It is true, however, that those rates are down about a fifth from that high of 21\1/2\ percent. But they must come down some more, and they have every reason to, because that 12.4-percent inflation rate we inherited has been running at only 3.2 percent for the last 6 months. And last month, for the first time in 17 years, it dropped below zero. Prices actually went down.

Now, with all of this in mind, we introduced a budget for 1983 of $758 billion, lower than the built-in spending by a considerable amount. Still, it represented an increase over the '82 budget of 332 -- pardon me, $32 billion. Nevertheless, there were outraged screams of protest, and you were led to believe that we were actually proposing less spending than the present level. There's been an insistent drumbeat, aided by special-interest groups charging that our budget would deprive the needy, the handicapped, and the elderly of the necessities of life. I'm sure many of these people were sincere, well intentioned, but also misinformed.

Our original budget proposal would have funded 95 million meals a day for the needy, provided medical care for 47 million Americans, subsidized housing for about 10 million people. In addition, there would be 7 million loans and grants for college students, of which there are 11 million full-time. Social security, which was $122 billion in 1980, will be $188 billion in 1983.

But the drumbeat was too loud. Many in Congress criticized that budget and demanded that we send up a new one. Well, we worked many months with the Cabinet on the one we submitted and believed it could fulfill government's responsibility to those who, through no fault of their own, had to depend on their fellow citizens for help. Besides, I felt that some workable alternative to ours should have been suggested by our critics so we could begin arriving at a consensus.

As the talk grew of stalemate, I asked my Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, to contact the congressional leadership of both Houses and see if some means couldn't be agreed upon in which the matter could be discussed, with the idea of finding an area of agreement. A bipartisan arrangement was made whereby the Senate had five representatives, the House of Representatives had seven, and the administration had five.

This group, which began to be called the ``Gang of 17,'' held its first meeting on April 1st, and its 13th and last the day before yesterday, April 27th. The rule they followed was that nothing was binding on Speaker O'Neill, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, or myself. They would simply see if they could find enough agreement that actual negotiations seemed possible and practical. I, in turn, had told our representatives the areas I felt were nonnegotiable. They were that any changes in defense spending must not interfere with or delay our rebuilding of national security, and that spending must be significantly reduced, and that our tax reductions, adopted last year, must be preserved.

I received regular progress reports and was greatly encouraged. The Gang of 17 worked long, hard hours and deliberated in good faith. What they were doing couldn't really be called negotiation. That would come later. Speaker O'Neill referred to it once as ``dialoguery.''

Well, the projected deficits for the next 3 years continued to increase as the lower inflation rate reduced estimated revenues. Continued unemployment, which costs government about $25 billion for every added one percentage point, took its toll. And the persistent high interest rates added to the cost of government borrowing.

While I don't believe in the accuracy of long-range projections, we're required to acknowledge them in our budgeting. They stand at $182 billion for 1983, $216 billion in '84, and $233 billion in 1985 if we do nothing about reducing spending. Not only must those deficits be reduced, they must show a decline over the next 3 years, not an increase. Our goal must be a balanced budget. And our budget would have set us on that road. But, apparently, there was no meeting of the minds.

There's no question but that a difference in philosophy exists. While the Democratic leadership lamented about the deficit facing us, committees in the House of Representatives, controlled by them, were recommending increases above and beyond our proposed budget of more than $50 billion in higher spending. Apparently the philosophical difference between us is that they want more and more spending and more and more taxes. I believe we should have less spending, less taxes, and more prosperity.

There hasn't been too much opportunity in the last 40 years to see what our philosophy can do. But we know what theirs can do: the longest sustained inflation in history, the highest interest rates in a hundred years, eight recessions since World War II, and a trillion-dollar debt.

The day before yesterday, Jim Baker told me the group had decided they could come no closer to agreement than they were, and there would be no more meetings. So I called Speaker O'Neill and suggested we meet to take up where the Gang of 17 had left off. That meeting took place for more than 3 hours yesterday.

The worksheets of the committee showed that on our side our nondefense spending cuts had been reduced to about 60 percent of what we had originally proposed. There were some areas such as estimated savings from improved management practices which had been accepted. On the Democratic side they'd expressed a willingness to accept some cuts which they thought were a concession on their part inasmuch as they hadn't wanted any budget reductions except in defense.

On revenues we had originally proposed about $13 billion for next year, most of which could be obtained through changes in tax regulations. Some regulations have been regulated or interpreted in such a way as to provide tax advantages which were never intended. The group was discussing a figure of $25 billion, which meant actually increasing some taxes or passing new ones. Now, that figure would not have required eliminating or reducing the tax cuts in our economic recovery program. Still the $25 billion figure was almost double our original proposal.

In yesterday afternoon's meeting on Capitol Hill, Speaker O'Neill, Senator Howard Baker, myself, and five of the Gang of 17 participated. As I say, the figures on which the group had found some agreement were far from those we'd proposed in February. But I decided against trying to start the negotiations on the basis of that original budget. The most essential thing is to send a message to the money market that we, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree on reducing the deficit and continuing to hold down inflation. Actually the Gang of 17 had come very close in their deliberations, and I was encouraged to believe that we could arrive at a settlement.

Our original cuts totaled $101 billion. They -- [referring to a chart] -- I can't make a big enough mark to show you -- but they were rejected, believe me. Our own representatives from the Congress proposed compromising at $60 billion. Their counterparts from the Democratic side of the aisle proposed 35. In our meeting yesterday, which went on for more than 3 hours, our compromise of $60 billion was rejected -- now my pen is working. And then I swallowed hard and volunteered to split the difference between our 60 and their 35 and settle for 48, and that was rejected. The meeting was over.

Now on this chart the red line is where we go in the next 3 years with regard to deficits if there is no compromise. It'll reach a deficit of $233 billion in 1985 alone, and as you can see, the line is still going up. And so will interest rates. The blue line is where we go if we settle on a reasonable compromise -- steadily down to a deficit by 1985 of only $44 billion. And you can see that a balanced budget is not far distant. And this blue line will, I'm convinced, start interest rates down from the moment there is agreement on the compromise.

It is essential that we have a prompt resolution of this budget debate. It is, of course, up to the Congress to act now. But I'll do everything I can to help in getting a prompt settlement. If American workers can show the statesmanship they've shown in redrawing their contracts to restrain their own wages to help in this time of recession, surely we in Washington can show some statesmanship, too.

I'm convinced we're in the trough, as it's called, of this recession and that we'll begin to see recovery in the second half of the year. There will be political pressure from some to turn on the printing presses and flood us with paper money. Well, that's been done before, and the answer is always the same -- a flush feeling for about 5 minutes, then more inflation leading toward a plunge into an even worse recession.

There is another road that leads to permanent recovery. It begins with a responsible budget now. In the coming days, I will do everything I can to help the Congress achieve this vital goal. And you can help, too, by letting your representatives know that you think this is no time for "politics as usual"; that you, too, want an end to runaway taxes, spending, government debt, and high interest rates.

Tomorrow I will meet with Republican members of the Gang of 17 to forge the beginnings of an acceptable budget initiative. On Monday I will meet with the full Republican leadership and with members of the Senate and House Budget Committees. I will also consult with responsible members of the Democratic Party in the Congress to make this a truly bipartisan effort in the national interest.

But our efforts must not stop there. Once we've achieved a balanced budget -- and we will -- I want to ensure that we keep it for many long years after I've left office. And there's only one way to do that. So, tonight I am asking the Congress to pass as soon as possible a constitutional amendment to require balanced Federal budgets.

This amendment will, of course, have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But I'm confident that the grassroots support for a balanced budget amendment is out there and will carry the day against the special interests. Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets -- spend no more than we can afford.

Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot, and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.

Time and again the American people -- you -- have worked wonders that have astounded the world. We've done it in war and peace, in good times and bad, because we're a people who care and who know how to pull together -- family by family, community by community, coast to coast -- to change things for the better. The success story of America is neighbor helping neighbor. So, tonight I ask for your help, your voice, at this turning point.

So often in history great causes have been won or lost at the last moment, because one side or the other lacked that last reserve of character and stamina, of faith and fortitude, to see the way through to success. Make your voice heard. Let your representatives know that you support the kind of fair, effective approach I have outlined for you tonight. Let them know you stand behind our recovery program. You did it once, you can do it again.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: www.reagan.utexas.edu

Cut, Cap, & BALANCE - A Complete Picture VIDEO

Join the Conversation: #CutCapBalance

Congress's past failure to produce balanced budgets is a major cause of today's fiscal crisis. It is time that Congress accepts a limit on its runaway spending, and joins the 49 states which govern with a balanced budget requirement. A balanced budget amendment that fundamentally reforms the way Washington budgets and spends must include protections against federal tax increases and a cap on federal spending to GDP.

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanStudyComm

Randy Neugebauer statement regarding his amendment (H.R. 2219) B-1 bomber VIDEO

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) issued the following statement today regarding his amendment (H.R. 2219) to the Defense Appropriations bill:

“Last night, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that prevents any funds in the bill from being used to retire any B-1 bombers this year, so that we can make cuts to the bomber fleet comprehensively rather than piecemeal.

I am grateful for the support of my House colleagues in approving this amendment, especially Reps. Thornberry, Conaway and Noem. Congresswoman Noem and I have been able to attract substantial support for this amendment because we have a very strong policy argument behind it. Currently, two-thirds of the bomber fleet is under review as a result of the new START Treaty limitations on nuclear delivery vehicles. At this time, we do not know what those cuts will look like, and there is no way to predict their impact on the capabilities of the overall bomber fleet. With just 162 aircraft, the bombers are a mere 3 percent of the Air Force’s manned aircraft fleet. After seeing the retirement of over 700 bombers during the last several decades, it is in the best interests of our national security to make the right decisions with this scarce asset.

While the passage of this amendment is a first step in a long and complicated legislative process, I am hopeful my colleagues in the Senate will share my belief that no B-1’s should be retired during this time of war against our enemies."

TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Randy Neugebauer Washington, D.C. 1424 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4005 Fax: (202) 225-9615

VIDEO CREDIT: RandyNeugebauer

Eric Cantor: We Must Get Our Fiscal House In Order Without Raising Taxes VIDEO

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today called on President Obama to release the details of his “grand plan” that he proposed for a debt limit increase:

“Today we will continue meetings at the White House to try to find consensus surrounding the debt limit. Though none of the plans being discussed right now could garner the 218 votes needed for House passage, we have found areas of agreement. I am glad the President has finally agreed that Medicare as we know it will be bankrupt within 10 years unless we do something about it, and I am glad he has agreed that we need to address our debt crisis now. As we move forward in this debate, I would ask that we work in earnest on these areas of commonality instead of demanding that areas of agreement are tied to items of fundamental disagreement like raising taxes. The President refuses to compromise on the repeal of ObamaCare, and House Republicans refuse to raise taxes, so both have been ruled out. Further, the simple reality is that tax increases cannot pass the House, and the constant demand for them makes coalescing around any increase in the debt limit less likely.

"Currently, there is not a single debt limit proposal that can pass the House of Representatives, but I believe the path forward is to focus on what we can agree upon, and though it doesn’t go as far as our budget, House Republicans can likely agree with the general spending cuts and entitlement changes in the ‘big deal’ proposed by the President. That isn’t everything that we want, as the President’s proposal appears to be around $3 trillion in spending cuts, compared to the reforms and the more than $6 trillion in cuts House Republicans supported in the Ryan budget. I also believe that the President should release the basic framework and details of his spending cuts so that both Republicans and Democrats can make well informed decisions about something of this magnitude. To date, we have not seen the details of his plan and we must be able to – the stakes are too high for anything less."

TEXT CREDIT: Eric Cantor Majority Leader Office of the Majority Leader H-329, The Capitol House of Representatives P: 202.225.4000

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: EricCantor

Paul Ryan The Future of Medicare: An Examination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board VIDEO TEXT

Rep. Paul Ryan delivered his opening statement at the House Budget Committee hearing on "Medicare's Future: An Examination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board."

Chairman Paul Ryan: Opening Remarks, As Prepared for Delivery.

Thank you to all for taking part in today’s hearing on the future of Medicare. For years, politicians in both political parties have not been honest with the American people about Medicare.

The facts are clear:

Health care costs are skyrocketing, growing at 8% a year. Medicare spending is on pace to double over the next decade, exhausting its remaining funds.

10,000 baby boomers are retiring every day, as fewer workers are left paying into the program.

Life expectancy was at 70 when Medicare was created, and is at 79 today.

Nonpartisan experts – including the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s own trustees – repeatedly warn of the looming insolvency of this critical program.

Rather than advancing solutions to address these facts, too many politicians in Washington have offered nothing but empty promises and false attacks. We deserve better.

Due in large part to this committee’s efforts, I believe that the debate is shifting to better reflect Medicare’s inescapable math. President Obama was exactly right when he stated yesterday: “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. It's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.”

Senator Joe Lieberman, who has worked in a bipartisan manner to offer ideas of his own, put it well when he recently stated: “We can only save Medicare if we change it.” The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the changes to Medicare made by the President’s health care law. Specifically, we will seek to better understand the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s role in achieving the hundreds of billions of dollars of savings called for by the President. While I imagine we’ll hear about the many different expansions of government buried in the 2,700-page law, today’s hearing is focused is on page 1000, Section 3403.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board – or IPAB – is a new executive branch agency created by the President’s healthcare law. The law empowers this board of 15 unelected officials with the authority to reduce Medicare spending. Unless overturned by a supermajority in Congress, the recommended cuts dictated by this board will become law.

Bipartisan concerns have been raised with several aspects of this board. While the proponents claim that beneficiaries will be held harmless from the board’s decisions, how can IPAB impose sharp cuts to providers without any adverse impact on their patients?

Given their unprecedented new power over Medicare, to whom are these 15 bureaucrats accountable? There are bipartisan concerns on this question. Democrats, including members of this committee, have raised concerns with Congress turning its responsibilities over to this board.

Seniors are also seeking clarity on the President’s recent efforts to expand this board’s power over Medicare. In an April speech, the President called for IPAB to enforce further restrictions in Medicare’s growth rate – down to GDP + 0.5%. The health-care law is already driving Medicare’s reimbursement rates well below the artificially low Medicaid rates. According to Medicare’s Chief Actuary Richard Foster, the health care law will pay doctors less than half of what their services cost at the end of the decade, and down to 33% in the decades ahead. Foster warns that these cuts are driving Medicare providers out of business and resulting in harsh disruptions in quality and access for seniors.

Yet the President’s ‘framework’ calls upon IPAB to slash reimbursements even further. It remains incumbent upon the Administration to specify how this board will squeeze hundreds of billions of additional dollars from Medicare over the next decade, as the President has proposed.

I want to thank Secretary Sebelius for testifying today to help address these concerns. There is no question that we have differences on how to address Medicare’s unsustainable future, but I appreciate your commitment to clarifying this debate for policymakers and for the American people.

I also want to thank our second panel of distinguished health care experts who will further discuss the merits of IPAB. We look forward to testimony from former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, and Dr. Judith Feder of the Urban Institute.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for their contributions to the debate, and to all for joining in today’s discussion. With that, I yield to Ranking Member Van Hollen for his opening statement.

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan: Washington, DC Office 1233 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3031 Fax: (202) 225-3393

VIDEO CREDIT: HouseBudgetCommittee

John Boehner Has Been Clear: Real Spending Cuts & Reforms, No Tax Hikes VIDEO

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) made the following remarks at a press conference with Republicans today regarding the White House request for an increase in the debt limit:

My message to the White House over the last several months has been real simple: the spending cuts have to be larger than the increase in the debt ceiling. Secondly, there are no tax increases on the table. And thirdly, we have to have real controls in place to make sure this never happens again. Real controls like a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“But the fact is that House Republicans have a plan. We passed our budget back in the spring, outlined our priorities. Where is the president’s plan? When’s he going to lay his cards on the table? This debt limit increase is his problem and I think it’s time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table – something that the Congress can pass.”

# # # # #

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: JohnBoehner

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact: H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit VIDEO TEXT

Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit: FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit:

“For more than two years now, Republicans in Washington have stood united in the belief that America would never recover from the economic crisis that struck our nation three years ago, so long as some in Washington persisted in the mistaken belief that government had the cure.

“For most clear-eyed observers, that view has found its clearest vindication in the daily drumbeat of news about lost jobs, shuttered businesses, and slumping home values; and in the stories that each of us hears from our constituents about the economic hardships that they continue to face.

“If anyone was still looking for proof that the President’s economic policies have been a failure, they don’t have to look any further than the morning papers or their constituent mail.

“Indeed, the more the administration insisted on spending and debt as the solution to our problems, the worse those problems became, and the more Americans demanded that the status quo in Washington had to change. But the administration was slow to get the message.

“After an election that any honest observer saw as a repudiation of its policies, the White House continued to cling to its playbook. As concerns about our debt and deficits grew, the President presented a budget so unequal to the task that not a single Democrat voted for it, not one. And as the nation inched closer to a potential default, the President focused his attention elsewhere.

“Meanwhile, Republicans were offering detailed solutions to the approaching crisis. We offered detailed budgets of our own. We offered to work out a compromise that lowered the debt and protected entitlements from bankruptcy. And here’s what we got in return: silence.

“And that’s where the debate over the debt limit came in. If Democrats would not agree on their own to do something about their addiction to spending and debt, then we’d refuse to enable it.

“If they wanted our votes to increase the debt limit, then they would have to do something to restrain the size and scope of government first.

“For awhile there, there weren’t many takers. Democrats from the President on down insisted that we simply raise the debt limit and endorse the status quo on spending without any reforms.

“That changed a couple months ago when the President agreed to delegate bipartisan debt reduction talks to the Vice President. Then, a couple weeks ago, the President broke his own silence on the debt ceiling debate and got personally involved himself.

“Incredibly, for those of us who had been calling for action on this issue day in and day out for about two years, the President tried to put the burden on us. With the nation edging closer to the debt limit deadline, the President retreated behind the poll-tested rhetoric of class warfare.

“At a moment when we needed leadership the most, we got the least. The financial security of the nation was being gambled on the President's wager that he could convince people our problems would be solved if we just all agreed to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street.

“In my view, that was the saddest commentary on the status of the leadership at the White House.

“And I’m proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along.

“We stood our ground. We know that what Americans need right now is for government to make job creation easier, not harder. And we said so. At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, we refused to support a tax hike. We supported jobs and economic growth instead.

“When Democrats saw that we wouldn’t budge, they proposed one last offer to craft a deal.

“They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years.

“We all saw how it worked. The Administration carefully leaked to the media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along with trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

“The lack of detail concealed the fact that the savings they were supposedly willing to support was at best smoke and mirrors. The hope here was that the budget gimmicks and deferred decision-making they actually supported would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening.

“But the practical effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We've seen this kind of thing before. It’s just this kind of sleight of hand governing that’s put our nation more than $14 trillion in debt. And I will not associate myself with it. I refuse to join in an effort to fool the American people.

“Republicans have told the President we're not interested in business as usual in Washington. We mean it. We will not be party to something that claims to save trillions but leaves it to future generations to pick up the tab, and to future Congresses to reverse it with a simple vote.

“We will not pretend that a bad deal is a good one. Which brings me to a larger point.

“The suggestion has been made that this debate has hinged on the question of whether or not the two parties could find a solution to our economic problems without raising taxes.

“Wrong.

“We could have done that without breaking a sweat.

“The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate as a unique opportunity to impose the type of tax hikes they want so badly but couldn’t pass even in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year.

“So let’s not be fooled by a false choice.

“This was not, in the end, a debate about whether taxes needed to be raised.

“It was a debate about the kind of government we want. This was a debate between those who believe that Washington doesn’t have enough money to spend, and those, like me, who believe that Washington has become too big, too expensive, and too burdensome already.

“If you think that the federal government isn’t big enough, then the only responsible thing to do is to support higher taxes. For those who are honest about that, I appreciate their candor.

“But for those of us who don’t think the federal government should be in charge of banks, the auto industry, the housing business, the student loan business, health care, and regulating everything else under the sun, we’re not about to further enable that model of government by shaking down the American people for more money at a time when they can least afford it.

“That’s what this debate is about. It’s about saying Washington has gotten too big, and that if it can’t afford its commitments, then it needs to find a way to cut back on them. But don’t demand that the American people pay more so Washington can make its bad habits permanent.

“I read an article yesterday that said two out of every five dollars Americans spend right now comes from the federal government. Is this really the model we want?

“Mr. President, I have a lot of meetings with constituents and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone say, `The problem with Washington is that they don’t have enough money to spend.’

“It was my hope that the two parties could reach a meaningful, bipartisan agreement. And I have to say, I was initially encouraged by the prospect of the bipartisan discussions led by the Vice President. Although I disagree with him on most issues, Vice President Biden is a man I've come to respect as a straight shooting negotiator. We found common ground last December to prevent a tax hike on the American people, and my hope was we could find a solution again.

“Sadly, these discussions started with shared goal of reducing the debt but quickly regressed to public a sideshow in which the price of admission became an insistence that we raise taxes on job creators and on millions of American families who do not have yachts or corporate jets.

“At a time when jobs are few and far between, that's not a price the American people can afford.

“So Republicans searched in good faith for common ground. But the goal posts just kept moving.

“We trudged on, hoping the administration would at some point realize that the crisis we face demands a clear change in direction, a departure from the government-driven policies of the past two years. But our hopes for a grand bargain eventually ran into the bitter reality that this Administration is just not interested in a meaningful and lasting solution to our mounting debt.

“It’s too committed to big government.

“We showed a willingness to sacrifice all along, even as we made it crystal clear from the outset that tax increases would not be a part of any agreement.

“It was their commitment to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain.

“It was their determination to freeze the policies of the past two years in place, permanently.

“The American people don’t want that, and Republicans won’t be seduced into enabling it.

“An ideological commitment to big government has outweighed the White House’s commitment to find a meaningful compromise that does not damage our fragile economy in the process.

“Rather than find a way to bring government back to the people, the Administration has committed itself to protecting the size and scope of government at the cost of job creation, economic growth, and America’s status in the global economy.

“The tragedy is that we all know what’s necessary to solve the economic crises we face.

“The answer is to cut spending.

“It’s no secret how to solve our entitlement crisis either. Any one of the people involved in these discussions could write it out on the back of an envelope.

“But it’s also no secret that Democrats would rather demagogue any solution Republicans propose in next year’s election than join us in seriously reforming them, despite what some Democrats started to say once it became clear that Republicans wouldn’t agree to a plan that raises taxes.

“We all saw the news stories yesterday about how senior Democrats have been worried that reforming Medicare now would make it harder for them to campaign against Republicans later. Evidently, they’d rather save their own jobs than save these programs from insolvency.

“I truly believed we could get this done.

“I truly believed, perhaps naively, that this Administration would see the necessity of preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

“In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of demagogueing a solution proved its undoing.

“Or perhaps it was just the ideological commitment to preserving the size of government by the most stridently liberal members of the other side.

“Whatever the reasons, it’s a tragic missed opportunity for the country.

“I hope the economists are wrong, and that our economy will continue to grow over the next year and a half to buy us time to tackle the problems we face. But after years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.

“This was not an easy decision for me.

“From my first day as Republican Leader in the Senate, I have called on Presidents from both parties to work with Congress on real solutions to the problems we face. And for more than two years I have had conversations with the Administration about working together to accomplish something big for the country. On each occasion, I've been met initially with encouraging words that gradually give way to moving goal posts.

“In the end, they have always expressed a fundamental unwillingness to engage in a meaningful effort to reduce spending as means to rein in the debt.

“Despite our stagnant economy, and the dire warnings of economic and security experts that we cannot sustain our mounting debt or unfunded liabilities, this President has proven that he will do almost anything to protect the size and scope of Washington, D.C's burgeoning bureaucracy.

“Including to threaten the economic security of every American by backing us up to the edge of default.

“I have heard some on the other side of the aisle suggest that Republicans have put us in this position by refusing to accept what they call a balanced approach.

“My response is that if the American people have learned one thing over the past few years, it’s that they need to bring their decoder rings to any debate in Washington these days.

“When Democrats say investment, they mean government spending.

“When they say revenue, they mean higher taxes.

“And when they say shared sacrifice, they mean they want you to take the hit, not Washington.

“It starts with the so-called rich, with the owners of the corporate jets, but pretty soon it hits the family flying in coach. Eventually everyone gets fleeced.

“Well, Americans have had enough. They think it’s time Washington shares in the sacrifice.

“Republicans invited Democrats into these discussions about finding a solution to our problems, and while we approached them with clear, unwavering principles, we also brought an open mind.

“The record reflects that.

“I won’t betray the confidence of those who were willing to negotiate with us, but there can be no question by anyone involved in those discussions that Republicans were willing to make tough choices.

“Where do we go from here?

“Well, I was one of those who had long hoped we could do something big for the country. But in my view the President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I hoped to do good; but I refuse to do harm.

“So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations.

“And to continue to press the administration to rein in Washington.

“Not to freeze it in place.

“That’s why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our deficits and debt in a way that puts the short and long-term health of our economy ahead of his personal vision of government.

“That’s what the American people want. That’s what Republicans will continue to insist on.

“Nothing less will solve the crises we face. Nothing less will do.”

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Washington Office 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: RepublicanLeader