Jim Jordan, The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan issued the following statement as the federal government hit its legal debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion today: “Five years ago, when the national debt was $8.2 trillion, then-Senator Obama said raising the debt limit was a ‘sign of leadership failure.’ Today, with the debt nearly 75% higher and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the Obama administration now says it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling.” “Let’s get one thing straight. Spending trillions more than you take in, that’s irresponsible. Bankrupting your children’s future to avoid today’s tough decisions, that’s failed leadership.”

“Keeping the debt ceiling at its current level would force Congress to prioritize spending, but it would not force a default on our debt. The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place."

“Conservatives are currently building support behind a ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ approach to reduce spending. This plan would cut the deficit in half next year, cap spending at average revenue levels, and send to the states a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. A ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ solution will give job creators and the markets a strong message that the Washington is finally getting its fiscal house in order."

“Washington can either cut spending to balance the budget or continue to kick the can down the road. If we don’t choose spending cuts today, the bond markets will eventually and painfully make the choice for us. One way or another, the buck stops here.”

NOTE: The “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan being advanced by RSC Chairman Jordan and other conservative leaders would:

Cut – Cut the federal deficit in half from this year to next.
Cap – Cap total federal spending at the historical average for revenue intake, 18% of GDP.
Balance – Permanently change the game on spending by sending to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment with strong protections against tax hikes and a spending limitation at 18% of GDP.

###

Congressman Jim Jordan is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

TEXT CREDIT: House Republican Study Committee 1524 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 226-9717 Fax: (202) 226-1633 rsc@mail.house.gov

IMAGE CREDIT: This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

Nikki Haley This Week with Christiane Amanpour VIDEO

Nikki Haley, "I will tell you we do not want a Massachusetts health care plan in South Carolina ... I think that he will have to continue to deal with that issue. I think he's going to have to talk about how that was not good for the country. That wouldn't be a good thing that we'd want to mandate on all of our states."

"The interesting thing was he was one of the only governors that showed courage when it came to dealing with health care, I think that we are looking for a leader that's willing to, one, make courageous stands, take strong policy decisions, but two, also admit when a mistake was made ... Every candidate's going to have their challenge, I certainly think that's going to be his challenge,"

"I think that Newt Gingrich has dealt with a lot of issues in the past, and I think now he's going to have to show that he's got those ideas to deal with the future."

VIDEO and TEXT CREDIT: This Week with Christiane Amanpour

Newt Gingrich Meet The Press why he’s running for president TEXT VIDEO

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

MR. GREGORY: Good morning. Another turn in the Republican presidential field, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee announced on his Fox News program last night that he would not be a candidate for president.

FMR. GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AR): All the factors say go, but my heart says no. And that's the decision that I've made. And in it, I finally found some resolution.

MR. GREGORY: One many who came to the opposite conclusion this week and has announced he is full steam ahead for 2012 is here with us exclusively this morning to kick off the return of our Meet the Candidates series, where throughout this primary season we will once again bring you in-depth interviews with the candidates for president. Joining us live this morning, the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Welcome back.

REP. GINGRICH: Good to be with you, David.

MR. GREGORY: This is your 35th appearance on the program. You've said a lot and done a lot over the years for us to go through. Mr. Speaker, as you know, campaigns are about the future; and yet, you're doing something very interesting, you're asking the American people for a stunning second act in American politics. Why?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I -- you know, my dad was a career soldier for 27 years in the infantry, and I think there are times when citizenship requires that you do what you think is necessary. We are at one of the great turning points in American history, and I believe the decision the American people make in 2012 will do more to define the next half century than any election I can remember. And I think that we are at a crossroads economically; we're at a crossroads in our core values as a country, what does it mean to be an American; we are in much greater danger in national security and homeland security than people realize. And having spent my lifetime, as you point out, studying this, working at it, becoming speaker of the House, spending the last 12 years as a small business owner and, and working on things with my wife -- making movies, writing books -- when you look at where we are, it just seemed to me that, that to not seek to help the country fix the problems we have would have been a failure of citizenship on my part. And we spent almost a year talking about this, looking at it, thinking about it very deeply, and I really believe we have to have a campaign which brings together millions of people. So it's not about one person in the Oval Office performing magic. It's going to take millions of Americans to get this country back on track.

MR. GREGORY: Let's go through the issues that are going to be big in the campaign. And I want to start with the debt. The big fight right now is whether to raise the debt ceiling. The president says, "You got to do it." The Treasury secretary says, "If you don't do it, we have a double-dip recession." Republicans say, "No, not so fast, not unless we get specific cuts in our government spending to cut the deficit before we raise the balance on America's credit card." You've been through this kind of fight before that goes to the mat, the shutdown of the government in the '90s that didn't turn out well politically for Republicans. And you wrote in

your book "Lessons Learned the Hard Way" the following about these moments: "I was to learn something about the American people," you wrote, "that too many conservatives don't appreciate. They want their leaders to have principled disagreements, but they want these disagreements to be settled in constructive ways. That is not, of course, what our own activists were telling us. They were all gung ho for a brutal fight over spending and taxes. We mistook their enthusiasm for the views of the American public." Given what you learned, would you tell members of your party now, "Don't go to the mat on the debt ceiling? Increase the debt ceiling and fight about the budget separately."

REP. GINGRICH: No. What I'd tell them is that I think Speaker John Boehner's come up with a very good formula. It's like a rheostat; it's not on/off, it's not yes/no. It is, "Mr. President, how many spending cuts are you willing to accept? We'll give you the same dollar value of debt ceiling increase that you'll give us in spending cuts. So if you only want $500 billion over the next five years in spending cuts, fine, here's a $500 billion increase in the debt ceiling. And by the way, you'll be back by the end of the year for another debt ceiling." But I, I think the president's also got to be held to an accountability for flexibility. If the debt ceiling matters that much, what is he willing to be flexible on? You take just one item which, which Congressman

Paul Ryan has proposed, and most governors agree with: If you were to block grant Medicaid, that one step is probably worth$1 trillion; $700 billion to the federal government, about $200 billion to $300 billion to the state governments. So, as a taxpayer, paying both federal and state taxes, that's $1 trillion less in debt over the next decade. I, I would not agree to just an automatic blank-check debt ceiling. We want -- you know, if your kids came in and had run up their credit cards and said, "Bail me out," you wouldn't say to them, "You don't have to change your behavior. Here, have some more money." You'd say, "Let's have a conversation about your behavior."

MR. GREGORY: But bottom line, if there's negotiations going on and they can't come to real resolution, you say go ahead, don't vote to increase the debt ceiling?

REP. GINGRICH: I would say find a formula and pass very, very short debt ceiling increases with very small amounts and take some savings that the president couldn't possibly veto. And if you had to, do a debt ceiling every three weeks. But do not give him a blank check. Because it's wrong for the American people.

MR. GREGORY: But don't let America default is what you're saying as well.

REP. GINGRICH: Avoid default if you possibly can. And frankly, if you watch, they've all of a sudden said they got an extra four months that they didn't think they had. So the secretary of the Treasury can do a great deal to maneuver.

MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...

REP. GINGRICH: Right.

MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and -- so that they can go out and buy private insurance?

REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left- wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called " Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We -- between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.

REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the -- I don't want to -- I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the issue of taxes. You've been clear so far in your campaign. You want to reduce the corporate tax rate, reduce other taxes, make permanent the Bush era tax cuts. You won't raise taxes? You won't consider it as part of a balanced budget at any point, raising taxes?

REP. GINGRICH: No.

MR. GREGORY: Under no circumstances?

REP. GINGRICH: I, I believe this is a country which has overspent, it's not undertaxed. And I believe every time you raise taxes, the politicians use that as an excuse to avoid facing the real decisions we're, we're confronting. We have a moment in history where we can get our house in order if we have the courage to stick to the job. I mean, I helped balance the budget for four straight years. We did it by cutting taxes and bringing the unemployment rate down to below 4 percent. The number one job in America today is to get people back to work because America only works when Americans are working.

MR. GREGORY: But serious bipartisan figures who have looked at this said you can't simply have a conversation about bringing the deficit into balance, the budget into balance, without looking at revenue increases.

REP. GINGRICH: Look, serious bipartisan figures are operating within the Washington consensus, which is wrong. You can, in fact, fundamentally rethink the federal government. Let me give you an example. IBM and Dell, and the other high-tech companies came together,

issued a report: If the federal government was simply run as effectively as a multinational corporation, it's worth$125 billion a year. I just put on the table for you not paying crooks, which is worth between $70 billion and $120 billion a year. None of these serious bipartisan figures rethink the federal government. They fight over the current shape of the federal government.

MR. GREGORY: What, what about jobs? Jobless rate now at 9 percent. You gave a speech

on Friday in Georgia, and you said the following about this president: You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

REP. GINGRICH: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.

MR. GREGORY: Oh, come on, David.

REP. GINGRICH: What did you mean? What was the point?

MR. GREGORY: That's, that's bizarre. That -- this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that -- and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have -- I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, what did you mean?

MR. GREGORY: Well, it's very simple. He has policies -- and I used a very direct analogy. He follows the same destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit. I follow the model that Rick Perry and others have used to create more jobs in Texas. You know, Texas two out of the last four years created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. I'm suggesting we know how to create jobs. Ronald Reagan did it. I was part of that. We know how to create jobs. We did it when I was speaker. And, and the way you create jobs is you have lower taxes, you have less regulation, you have litigation reform. When the New York Stock Exchange puts its headquarters at Amsterdam, Holland and, by the way, follows 40 other companies in the last year; when General Electric pays zero in taxes; there's something fundamentally wrong with the current system. The Obama system of the National Labor Relations Board basically breaking the law to try to punish Boeing and to threaten every right-to-work state. The Environmental Protection Agency trying to control the entire American economy by bureaucratic fiat. The Obama system's going to lead us down the path to Detroit and destruction. I think we need a brand-new path. It's a path of job creation. And one of the central themes of this campaign is going to be paychecks vs. food stamps.

REP. GINGRICH: All right, let me ask you about another hot-button issue in the Republican primary, of course, and that's health care. Mitt Romney having to defend his proponent -- that he was a proponent of universal health care in Massachusetts, and specifically around this idea of the individual mandate where you make Americans buy insurance if they don't have it. Now, I know you've got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

MR. GREGORY: I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance-- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

REP. GINGRICH: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?

MR. GREGORY: No, it's not precisely what he did. In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington- based model, creating a federal system. I believe all of us -- and this is going to be a big debate -- I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. I think the idea that...

REP. GINGRICH: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.

MR. GREGORY: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay -- help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond...

REP. GINGRICH: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

REP. GINGRICH: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

MR. GREGORY: It's a variation on it.

REP. GINGRICH: OK.

MR. GREGORY: But it's a system...

REP. GINGRICH: And so you won't use that issue against Mitt Romney.

MR. GREGORY: No. But it's a system which allows people to have a range of choices which are designed by the economy. But I think setting the precedent -- you know, there are an amazing number of people who think that they ought to be given health care. And, and so a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year, don't buy any health insurance because they want to buy a second house or a better car or go on vacation. And then you and I and everybody else ends up picking up for them. I don't think having a free rider system in health is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of our society.

REP. GINGRICH: Let me ask you about the U.S. role in the world. We're still digesting the intelligence that's coming out of the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. You said back in February, "Any honest assessment on 9/11 this year, 10 years after the attack, would have to lead to the conclusion that we are simply and slowly losing the war." Do you still feel we're losing the war against terror?

MR. GREGORY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think...

REP. GINGRICH: Even after bin Laden?

MR. GREGORY: ...the thing -- sure, look at what we've learned about bin Laden. We've learned that for nine and a half years the country, Pakistan, to which we have given $20 billion was apparently hiding him. Now, does any serious person believe that the Pakistani government had no idea bin Laden was sitting there? Does anybody -- and notice, by the way, what the intelligence chief has apologized for. He's apologized for the Americans getting bin Laden. He didn't apologize for nine and a half years of failing to find him. He didn't apologize for Pakistan having failed to do its duty. And who did the -- who did the Pakistanis call the minute the American covert helicopter was shot down? They called the Chinese. Now, I would just suggest to you, we need to rethink carefully what do we mean by the word, "ally."

REP. GINGRICH: Well so, what does it mean? Would you cut off foreign aid to Pakistan right now?

MR. GREGORY: I would look very seriously at the whole relationship. But I, I, I believe something much deeper. I think this conflict with radical Islamists is so much more profound and is going to last so much longer that we had better be thinking about very different strategies. I, I don't know that a simple boots-on-the-ground and violence from predators model -- this is not a comment on President Obama. I think the, the whole system, including in the Bush administration, has underestimated the depth of the problem and, and the level of the, of the challenge that we face.

REP. GINGRICH: Let me turn to another area that has earned you criticism, and that is questions about your temperament, given things that you have said during the long career in, in the public arena where people question your motivation. Once such comment was made in September of last year. You were talking about the president. I'll put it up on the screen. "What if [ Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti- colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. ... This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president." Now somebody like you has this reputation for such an intellect to make statement like that sounds either ill-informed or, at worst, bigoted. What's the basis for making a comment like that?

MR. GREGORY: Well, first of all, that comment was made in reference to a book by Dinesh D'Souza who's a first generation American from India, who wrote a very interesting book arguing away a thing about Obama. So it was in the context of a discussion about a book written by an American first generation immigrant who says, "Gosh, from my perspective here's a way of thinking about the president." Second, I think it's fair to say that I'm going to have -- one of the tests on this campaign trail is going to be whether I have the discipline and the judgment to be president. I think that's a perfectly fair question.

REP. GINGRICH: Is this a fair example -- in other words, this notion that somehow Obama's anti-American, that he is not on America's team, that he doesn't love America, are you prepared to say right now to say both on behalf of yourself and to other Republicans out there that this is nonsense, we ought to put this to rest?

MR. GREGORY: Well, look, I think he loves America. But I think he has a very different vision of what America is.

REP. GINGRICH: And what is that?

MR. GREGORY: I think it's a -- well, for example, he gives a speech to the National Defense University on Libya in which he cites the United Nations and the Arab League eight times and the U.S. Congress once. Now, I just think there's a little bit of imbalance there.

REP. GINGRICH: You don't think he believes in American exceptionalism?

MR. GREGORY: I don't. I'm fairly confident if you look at the -- now, he's learned recently how to say it.

REP. GINGRICH: Hm.

MR. GREGORY: But if you go back and look at the first two years of his presidency, it was a real change, a real...

REP. GINGRICH: All right.

MR. GREGORY: But here -- let me talk about me for a second, not about President Obama.

REP. GINGRICH: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: One of my great weaknesses is that part of me is a teacher analyst. And part of me is a political leader. And I've -- one of the most painful lessons I've had to learn, and I haven't fully learned it obviously, is that if you seek to be the president of the United States, you are never an analyst, you know, you're never a college teacher because those folks can say what they want to say. And somebody who offers to lead America has to be much more disciplined and, and much more thoughtful than an analyst. Analysts can say anything they want to because there's no downside. But the person to whom you're entrusting the leadership of the United States had better think long and hard before they say things. I think that's a fair criticism of me.

REP. GINGRICH: Let's talk about the campaign and your role in the campaign. You said back in 1996 that you're not a natural leader, that you're more of an intellectual gadfly. And yet here you are running for the presidency. Is that your role in this campaign, to be an ideas guy...

MR. GREGORY: No.

REP. GINGRICH: ...to force the issue or to actually win?

MR. GREGORY: That's a very fair question. And all I can tell you is that I've now spent 15 years trying to grow from gadfly to proposer of very serious, very fundamental policy change. And one of the real parts of this campaign will be the process of going to the American people, starting tomorrow in Iowa, talking about the things you and I are talking about. What do we do to get people back to work? What do we do to get back to a balanced budget? How do we enforce the 10th Amendment and move power out of Washington? These are huge undertakings. And my job is to gather together really bright people, listen to them carefully, and develop over time a series of proposals around which I think America, not just Newt Gingrich, but America, should stake its future.

REP. GINGRICH: You look at the field that's starting to take shape on the Republican side-- and we'll put the, the current polling on the board -- Mike Huckabee is now not running. He was high up there. Donald Trump. You were there at 10 percent. And our latest poll still indicates that you've still got high negatives. There's still a high unfavorable rating. Some of that, Mr. Speaker, has to do with your own personal life, the fact that you've been married three times, you had extramarital affairs, one of -- during which the time that Republicans were pursuing President Clinton for impeachment that earned you the label of being a hypocrite. And I wonder how you're going to deal with this, particularly when social conservatives, like Tom Coburn, senator from Oklahoma, has said the following about you. And I'll put it up on the screen. This was from last summer. Senator Coburn "made it clear that he won't be on Newt Gingrich's 2012 presidential bandwagon. " Gingrich'is a super-smart man, but he doesn't know anything about commitment to marriage,' he said of the thrice-married former House speaker. 'He's the last person I'd vote for, for president of the United States. His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president.'"

MR. GREGORY: Well, all I can say to every American, and every American has the right to ask these questions, is that I have made mistakes in my life. I have had to go to God for forgiveness and to seek reconciliation. And I'd ask them to look at who I am today, look at the strong marriage that Callista and I have, look at the close relationship I have with my two daughters and their husbands, look at the loving relationship we have with our grandchildren, and decide whether or not I am today a person that they believe could lead the country and could save us in a period of, of enormous problems. I think the problems we face require a leader with the courage to take the heat and to try to bring together millions of people so that collectively we can get this country back on the right track.

REP. GINGRICH: But before you get there, it becomes an electability issue. You've said -- one of the things you've said is that you've matured. But you were 55 years old at the time these things were going on, hardly a young man. And at the same time, just this year, you've talked about what was going on in your life at the time. This is what you told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

MR. GREGORY: There's no question that at times of my life, partially driven by, by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

REP. GINGRICH: Do people -- should they be expected to take that as a serious act of contrition?

MR. GREGORY: No.

REP. GINGRICH: That you were so patriotic and so passionate that you cheated on your wife?

MR. GREGORY: No. David, and that, that's 15 seconds out of what I think was a 20- something minute interview. I have said -- I'll repeat what I said to you a minute ago. I clearly have done things that were wrong. I've clearly had to seek God's forgiveness. I've seen -- I believe people have to decide whether or not what I've said and what I've done is real. And I think that if people watch me and talk with me and get to know me, my hope is it'll -- the majority of Americans will decide that I can help this country get back on track in a way that no one else can. And if they decide that that's true, then I think we will have a very successful campaign. But people have every right to ask the tough questions and to measure somebody personally.

REP. GINGRICH: You understand people, particularly conservative Republicans saying...

MR. GREGORY: Absolutely. Yes.

REP. GINGRICH: ..."This is not a guy I can support."

MR. GREGORY: I, I understand people questioning. And then we'll see whether or not, over time, they decide I'm somebody they can support or whether, as many people say to me, that as they get to know me and as they listen to what I'm doing and they watch how I operate and they watch what I'm doing, they say, "You know, I really do think you can help America, and we're going to help you." I have a large number of social conservatives who support me because, as we've talked this through, they've reached a different conclusion about what America needs and what I can bring in trying to fill that role of leader.

REP. GINGRICH: What about taxes? Also important to conservatives. There are reports about your businesses having unpaid taxes. Can that be resolved?

MR. GREGORY: Look. I -- they're all -- every single thing in that report had already been resolved. We run four businesses. Over 12 years we've paid millions of dollars in taxes. There were, I think, four or five places where, largely because stuff got lost in the mail coming to us, we didn't even know we had the liens. And several of the cases, when we called, the liens didn't even exist. All of that's taken care of. I think the total amount was $6,000 over a 12-year period.

REP. GINGRICH: What about Mike Huckabee? Do his voters go to you? Will you be working for him?

MR. GREGORY: Look, his voters are very independent, and they're going to go where they believe that America needs to go both on conservative and spiritual values. Huckabee-- Governor Huckabee is going to remain a very important figure in the conservative moment, and I suspect that, that he is going to have a role to play for many years to come.

REP. GINGRICH: In the conservative moment, there is, of course, a celebration of Ronald Reagan. And a lot of candidates, you -- try to grab that mantle of Reagan. Back on this program in 1990, you said some interesting things about Reagan. I want to show them.

MR. GREGORY: First of all, Ronald Reagan did a lot of things that conservatives didn't like. And I think it's a little bit much to go back and say that was Camelot, that that was an era of pure conservatism. George Bush isn't as good as Reagan was at making speeches on the right while governing in the center, but the fact is, that's what Ronald Reagan did.

REP. GINGRICH: Is that a model for President Gingrich? Run on the right, govern from the center?

MR. GREGORY: Well, Ronald Reagan ran a very broad center right platform. Ronald Reagan ran on defeating the Soviet empire. He and I agreed totally on cutting taxes, and I helped pass

REP. GINGRICH: Rendezvous with Destiny." I just spoke yesterday at Eureka College, his alma mater, at -- in the commencement. He is an extraordinary man. But there is a lot to learn from him. You were mentioning earlier about the debt ceiling fight. Reagan had a pretty firm rule of get 80 percent and keep moving. Don't go for 100 percent.

the three tax cuts. Callista and I have done a movie, "Ronald Reagan: Is that how you would approach it? Try to govern from the center?

MR. GREGORY: I -- the center right. I think it -- I don't think that people on the left would be very happy, but I've always said publicly, and Reagan believed this, you can't have a hard right presidency succeed because the country, there's a center-right majority that will isolate the left. There's not a right wing majority in this country. But clearly Reagan was a great conservative overall, and I think that my record is pretty extraordinarily conservative in the same tradition.

REP. GINGRICH: Who's the front-runner right now on the Republican side?

MR. GREGORY: Oh, I suspect Governor Romney is just because of the scale of the money he has and the amount he can raise. But, candidly, since Governor Huntsman probably has equal amount of money, he may be in. If Donald Trump comes in, he has, he has...

REP. GINGRICH: Is he a serious candidate? Is Trump a serious candidate?

MR. GREGORY: Who knows? I mean, this is a free society, and anybody who wants to can come play. All three of them are capable of providing enough money on their own that they're very formidable candidates.

REP. GINGRICH: Would you entertain being on the ticket as a number two if it came to that?

MR. GREGORY: David, I want you to ask yourself, can you imagine any presidential nominee who would pick me to be the vice presidential candidate?

REP. GINGRICH: But would you entertain it? Would that be a no?

MR. GREGORY: Nobody -- as Reagan said in '76 when he was hoping Ford would not ask him, nobody could automatically say no to the president of the United States. But it strikes me as so implausible, I'm not -- Callista and I will not spend long hours worrying about that question.

REP. GINGRICH: And the debate goes on. Speaker Gingrich, thank you very much.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you.

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: Meet The Press

John Boehner Face The Nation the President is really not serious about tackling the big problems that face our country TEXT VIDEO

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

HARRY SMITH: Today on a special edition of FACE THE NATION, House speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama headed for a showdown over the debt crisis. As the nation reaches the limit on its debt, both sides say it should be increased, but Republicans want strings attached.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-Ohio/Speaker of the House): Without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the American people’s money, there will be no increase in the debt limit.

HARRY SMITH: The President says, no way.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Let’s not have a-- a-- a-- the kind of linkage where we’re even talking about not raising the debt ceiling. That’s going to get done. But let’s get serious about
deficit reduction.

HARRY SMITH: Hearing what the President has to say, what does it make you think?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Well, it makes me think that he’s really not serious about tackling the big problems that face our country.

HARRY SMITH: You don’t think he’s serious about the deficit reduction?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: He’s talking about it but I’m not seeing real action.

HARRY SMITH: We’ll also get the speaker’s thoughts on the Republican plan for reforming Medicare, the mortgage crisis and what’s next after Bin Laden.

All ahead on FACE THE NATION.

ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now from Washington, substituting for Bob Schieffer, Harry Smith.

HARRY SMITH: Good morning and welcome to a special edition of FACE THE NATION. We’re at the Capitol this morning and we are speaking to the Speaker of the House John Boehner. Mister Speaker, good morning.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Good morning.

HARRY SMITH: I’m going to get back to Monday when you were in New York speaking to the Economic Club and you made a lot of news because you said, you know what, we can have a conversation about raising the debt ceiling but it’s got to go hand in hand with reducing the deficit. Have you given serious thought about what parts of the deficit, what-- what would be traded here?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Well, I think it’s the time to deal with the big problems that face our country. We’ve got spending that’s out of control. We’ve got an economy that’s not producing jobs. A lot of economists believe that-- that all of the debt and all of the spending is causing uncertainty and causing job creators to sit on their hands. I used to be a small businessman. I understand what uncertainty does. And I think it’s time to deal with the pressing fiscal problems that we have here in Washington. I’ve been here for twenty years. I’ve watched leaders who look at this problem. It’s like looking up at a mountain and seeing how tall it was and how steep it was and deciding, nah, we’ll kick the can down the road. Well, guess what? We’re running out of road to kick the can down. And I want us to deal with the big problems that
are facing us here in Washington.

HARRY SMITH: We had a town meeting earlier this week with the President talking about economic issues. And we talked about that very subject. I’d like you to take a look at what he had to say. We-- we came precipitously close to a-- a government shutdown--

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Yeah.

HARRY SMITH: --within recent memory. And now the next potential real falling out is with the debt ceiling. And Speaker John Boehner said this week, “You know what, we’ll be happy to help you raise the debt ceiling. We want equivalent deficit reduction for every dollar we raise the debt ceiling.”

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Hm.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, first of all, we both agree, John Boehner and I agree that we got to reduce our deficit. Second of all, we both agree that we’ve got to raise the debt ceiling.
Now a lot of Americans, by the way, when you ask them, should we to-- increase the debt ceiling, and they say no we’ve already got enough debt. Why would we you know, increase our limit on our credit card when we can’t pay what we’ve already got on there? The-- the-- the problem is that the way the federal government finances itself is we sell debt to investors, other countries, et cetera, through Treasury bills and if at any point somebody thought-- if investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the United States was not being backed up. If they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system. We could have a worse recession than we already had. A worse financial crisis than we had already. So we can’t even get close to not raising the debt ceiling. But we also have to reduce the deficit. And-- and what I’ve said is let’s not have a-- the kind of linkage where we’re even talking about not raising the debt ceiling. That’s going to get done. But let’s get serious about deficit reduction. And I’ve put a-- a plan on the table that takes four trillion dollars out of our-- out of our deficit and debt. The question is, are we going to have some compromise? Is it going to be balanced? Are we going to make sure that no single group, not seniors, not poor folks, not any single group is carrying the entire burden? Let’s make sure that the burden is shared for making some tough choices.

HARRY SMITH: Can you-- can you even start a conversation on that?

HARRY SMITH: Hearing what the President has to say, what does it make you think?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Well, it makes me think that he’s really not serious about tackling the big problems that face our country.

HARRY SMITH: You don’t think he’s serious about deficit reduction?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Well, he’s talking about it. But I'm not seeing real action yet. And I just think this is the moment. We all know what the problems are. Why don’t-- why don’t we just deal with them? No more kicking the can down the road. FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT in PDF FORMAT

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

Martha Roby Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 05/14/11

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

Martha Roby Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 05/14/11

“Hello, I’m Representative Martha Roby. It is a great honor to speak to you today about the challenges our country faces. “I do so, not only as the representative of Alabama’s Second Congressional District, but also as a mother concerned about the future for my kids, and yours.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve gone to the grocery store and found myself in a conversation about the price of gas, the cost of going to the doctor, or about how hard it is to get a business going and keep jobs in our area. The sad conclusion of these conversations is that Washington is a part of the problem. It is failing to promote policies that will put our economy on a path to prosperity.

“The price of gas is a good example, and a timely one too. Year after year, politicians in Washington talk about steps to ease the pain at the pump, but they never act. It hit home this spring when the president promoted Brazilian-made energy in Brazil while his administration keeps our resources here at home under lock and key. I am pleased to report the House has passed several measures designed to expand domestic energy production to help address the soaring gas prices. This is also important because when we’re talking about energy, we’re talking about jobs. The cost of energy is directly related to the cost of hiring workers and running a business.

“The cost of government is also hurting our economy. Washington’s failure to enact policies that promote long-term economic growth and balance the budget is creating uncertainty for employers and consumers alike.

“For years now, Washington has kicked the can down the road without facing up to its spending addiction. Not anymore. The big spenders have been put on notice and are on retreat.

“The American people reject the idea of giving Washington a blank check to increase the debt limit. The House is listening. Republicans have made clear that there will be no increase in the national debt limit, unless it is accompanied by significant spending reforms that truly change the culture of spending in Washington.

“To get there, everything should be on the table – everything, that is, except tax increases. We cannot tax the same people we expect to create jobs. That is a recipe for keeping people out of work. The threat of tax hikes - along with the torrent of rules and regulations coming out of Washington - has employers sitting on their hands at the worst possible time.

“The Republican budget put forward by Chairman Paul Ryan ends the threat of job-crushing tax hikes. It also preserves critical programs like Medicare. Because, again, the greatest threat is doing nothing. If we do nothing, Medicare will simply run out of money. Without action, seniors’ benefits will be cut. Under Chairman Ryan’s plan, seniors 55 and older would not be affected in any way. That is an important point. For those of us under 55, we must take steps to ensure Medicare will still be around when we retire.

“It is time for Washington to get serious about the challenges that face our country. This includes putting our fiscal house in order and addressing the soaring gas prices. The greatest threat to our economy, job creation, and the future of our children is to do nothing. We have to act. It is what we were sent to Washington to do.

“Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank all Americans for the overwhelming support and especially the prayers you have sent to the people of Alabama in the wake of last month’s devastating tornadoes. We have needed them. As have the people of Tennessee and all those along the Mississippi dealing with terrible flooding.

“It is heartbreaking to see our friends and neighbors go through tough times. But, as always, the people of our state are coming together to lend a helping hand to do what needs to be done.

“I am proud to represent people who care so deeply about their communities. Their perseverance and strength only motivates me more as their representative in Congress. I owe it to them not to let this critical moment pass without acting to ensure the American Dream is alive and well for our children and grandchildren. If everyone in Washington felt the same way, we could accomplish a great deal more.

“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

Ron Paul Statement Introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act, HR 1831

Statement Introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act, HR 1831

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.

Nine States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia--allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with state laws. However, federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these states growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers.

Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in approximately 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with state law.

Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our nation's history. In fact, during World War II, the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film "Hemp for Victory'' encouraging the plant's cultivation.

In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, carpet, and door frames of cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel.

It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Ron Paul Washington, DC 203 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone Number: (202) 225-2831

IMAGE CREDIT: libertyactivist

Ron Paul officially announces bid for President 2012 VIDEO

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas's 14th district officially announces his bid for the 2012 Presidential race on Good Morning America, 7AM 5/13/2011.

Ron Paul Exeter town hall, New Hampshire. Presidential Campaign kickoff rally and speech at 10:00 am ET 5/13/11.

VIDEO CREDIT: libertyactivist and jberecz

Mike Johanns to Oppose Diamond Nomination to Federal Reserve

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today announced his opposition to the nomination of Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Johanns is a member of the Senate Banking Committee, which will vote Thursday on whether to advance Diamond's nomination to the Senator floor. "With our country spending its way into a crisis, I can no longer support a nominee so vocally in favor of more spending, more stimulus, and more quantitative easing," Johanns said.

"We must be increasingly wary of the threat of inflation, yet the Fed continues to print money with reckless abandon. Because this nominee's recent comments in support of more stimulus and quantitative easing have demonstrated such an alarming lack of concern over our spending and fiscal realities, I cannot support his nomination."

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senator Mike Johanns for the State of Nebraska: Washington, D.C. Office: 404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-4224 Fax: (202) 228-0436 Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. ET

IMAGE CREDIT: All rights reserved by Senator Mike Johanns

House Passes Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act H.R. 1229 FULL TEXT VIDEO

House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Put the Gulf Back to Work, Increase American Energy Production. H.R. 1229 Ends Obama Administration’s De Facto Offshore Drilling Moratorium in Gulf of Mexico.

H.R.1229 -- Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act FULL TEXT in PDF FORMAT

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 11, 2011 - Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, with a bipartisan vote of 263 to 163. Introduced by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, H.R. 1229 will end the Obama Administration’s de facto drilling moratorium in a safe, responsible, transparent manner – putting thousands of Americans back to work and increasing American energy production to help address rising gasoline prices.

“This bill will provide relief to the people of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to finally return to work following the Obama Administration’s intentional slow-walking of drilling permits,” said Chairman Hastings. “With passage of this bill, House Republicans are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by while the Obama Administration sidelines American workers, sends American jobs overseas and continues to lock-up our American energy resources at a time of rising gasoline prices. I applaud the House for passing the Putting the Gulf back to Work Act and hope the Senate follows our lead to ease the economic pain in the Gulf of Mexico and help reduce gasoline prices across the country.”

This week, the House will also vote on Chairman Hastings’ third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.

H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act:

Improves safety by reforming current law to 1) require lease holders to receive an approved permit to drill before drilling an offshore well and 2) require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review.

Sets a firm 30 day timeline (with two 15 day extensions) for the Secretary to act on a permit to drill. This simply requires the Secretary to act within the set period of time – it is not a requirement that permits be approved. This firm timeline will make certain that the Obama Administration cannot impose a moratorium through deliberate inaction.

Provides 30 days, with no extension, for the Secretary to restart Gulf permits that were approved before the Administration’s moratorium was imposed on May 27, 2010. If the Secretary fails to act, the leases will be put into suspension (the clock stops ticking on the time-limited lease) until a decision is made.

Establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to Gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama Administration isn’t replaced by paralyzing, frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.

###

Contact: Jill Strait, Spencer Pederson or Crystal Feldman 202-226-9019

TEXT CREDIT: Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, Phone: (202) 225-2761, Fax: (202) 225-5929. Please direct all press inquiries to the Communications Office at: (202) 226-9019.

VIDEO CREDIT: CongressmanLamborn

Paul Ryan statement on Senate Democratics' budget Failure

Washington – Yesterday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan called upon Democratic leaders to join Congressional Republicans’ efforts to advance serious solutions to America’s most pressing fiscal and economic challenges. In response to another solution put forward by Congressional Republicans, Ryan issued the following statement: “I appreciate the hard work of my friend Senator Pat Toomey in putting forward specific proposals to address our nation’s fiscal and economic challenges.

His proposed FY2012 budget incorporates many of the reforms advanced in the House-passed FY2012 Budget Resolution, which puts the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity. I remain grateful to all Senate Republicans for their leadership in changing Washington’s culture of spending, and for their steadfast commitment to fiscal discipline.

“It is unfortunate that Senate Democratic leaders – along with President Obama – remain unwilling to put forward credible solutions to avert the debt-fueled economic crisis before us. Senate Democrats failed to pass a budget last year, and have already missed the deadline for passing a budget this year. Will they continue to push false attacks and use scare tactics on our solutions, or will they work with Congressional Republicans and the American people to advance a budget that meets the challenges of today?”

###

Contact: Conor Sweeney 202-226-7270

TEXT CREDIT: Committee on the Budget: U.S. House of Representatives 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

IMAGE CREDIT: c-span.org

Jon Stewart The Daily Show introduces a few of the lesser-known candidates at the first Republican presidential debate VIDEO

Daily Show: Indecision 2012 - Good Luck Motherf@*kers Edition - Blather for Elephants.

Fox News introduces a few of the lesser-known candidates at the first Republican presidential debate.

Tags: Republicans, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Fox News, Google, drugs, legalization, waterboarding, stem cells, government, media, mongering, candidates, debates, elections, Indecision, Indecision 2012, photos.

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: The Daily Show

Todd Young Our national debt as a national security concern VIDEO

At a recent town hall forum, Rep. Todd Young explains who owns our debt and how it could be a national security concern.

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: RepToddYoung

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon Releases Details about National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 FULL TEXT

Committee Chairman Charges: “We Can’t Keep Doing Things the Same Old Way and Expect Better Results” NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act / Full Committee Mark in PDF FORMAT 5.4 mb. Washington D.C.—In releasing his version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee today cautioned that the Administration should not repeat the mistakes of the past while expecting better results. U.S. Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), the defense panel’s chairman, detailed how the annual defense authorization bill provides an alternative path forward, proposing significant savings while also meeting the needs of our nation’s warfighters.

“The Department of Defense cannot continue to conduct business as usual and expect better results. Proposing to cut defense spending by nearly $500 billion in the coming decade without first conducting the necessary due diligence to determine what our nation’s basic defense requirements will be is an invitation to other countries to challenge America’s supremacy,” stated McKeon.

“When tapped to lead the Armed Services Committee, I committed—and instructed all Members of the Committee—to scrutinize the Department of Defense’s budget and identify inefficiencies so we may invest those savings into higher national security priorities. Up until now, the Pentagon has taken a band-aid approach to acquisition and management problems and has done little to identify the root causes of the inefficiencies that exist within the defense enterprise,” continued McKeon.

“The 2012 defense bill reflects the fact that members of the Armed Services Committee, the broader Congress—and the nation—must make tough choices in order to provide for America’s common defense. We must examine every aspect of the defense enterprise—not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions as the current Administration has proposed—but to find ways that we can accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more effectively,” concluded McKeon.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which will be marked up by the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, achieves Chairman McKeon’s goals by working to:

Ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time they need to successfully complete their missions and return home;

Provide our warfighters and their families with the resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned;

Invest in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the United States from current and future threats;

Mandate fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability within the Department of Defense; and

Incentivize competition for every tax-payer dollar associated with funding Department of Defense requirements.

Of note, Chairman McKeon addresses the following in his “mark” of the annual defense authorization bill:

Oversight of Financial Management and Reliability of Department of Defense Financial Statements. The Armed Services Committee continues to be concerned that more than 60 percent of the Department of Defense financial community exists outside the auditing, accounting and financial management job classifications. Members of the committee are also concerned that the Department of Defense lacks financial managers who understand the fiscal concepts necessary to manage defense resources. Therefore, Chairman McKeon’s mark:

Establishes a financial management certification program for the Department of Defense;

Requires the Chief Management Officer to conduct a financial management personnel competency assessment in order to identify the personnel requirements needed to effectively perform financial, budgetary and accounting processes and to maintain professional certification standards;

Directs the Comptroller General to annually assess the extent to which the Department of Defense is realizing the savings proposed by Secretary’s efficiencies initiatives, and requires the Comptroller General to assess the extent to which components of the Department of Defense conducted business case analysis prior to recommending or implementing these efficiencies initiatives;

Requires increased oversight of the Department of Defense’s execution of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan by requiring specific funding lines in the budget, development of metrics for identifying progress, and mitigation strategies for failure to meet required deadlines.

Chairmen McKeon will continue to rely upon on Representative Mike Conaway (R-Tex.) and Representative Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) as they and the committee work to reform the Pentagon’s acquisition and management practices.

Roles and Missions of the Department of Defense. In the 2008 version of the defense authorization bill, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of roles and missions every four years with the intent of identifying capability gaps and areas of unnecessary duplication. In the report delivered to Congress in January 2009, it was clear that the Department of Defense failed to use the first review as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the roles and missions of the Armed Forces—choosing instead to simply endorse the status quo.

When the President announced his intent to cut the Department of Defense’s budget by an additional $400 billion—above the $78 billion which had already been announced—he also announced that the Department of Defense would conduct a review of the Department’s roles and missions in order to determine where those cuts should be made. Chairman McKeon and the members of the committee support this effort and strongly believe that harvesting arbitrary “savings” prior to determining the capabilities needed to protect the United States is putting the cart before the horse.

The 2012 defense authorization act would strengthen the 2011 Quarterly Roles and Missions Review in order to provide a solid basis for reducing waste while also improving the joint warfighting capability of the Department.

Sustainment of Equipment and Weapon Systems. American taxpayers cut a check every year for more than $80 billion in order to maintain defense material and equipment. Chairman McKeon believes this could be provided more efficiently. To achieve this goal, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012:

Strengthens and improves the military’s depots and arsenals. These critical, organic industrial base assets provide the nation with a ready and controlled source of repair for our military equipment, and they provide jobs for more than 77,000 hard working, highly skilled Americans.

Requires competition throughout the life-cycle of weapon systems for components and subcomponents. Air Force estimates indicated that this type of competition could render up to $2 billion in savings annually when applied to sustainment of Air Force commercial derivative aircraft engines alone, yet the Department has not embraced this competitive approach.

Provides increased stability in workload planning for private industry and the depots by requiring the Department of Defense to plan for sustainment earlier in weapon system development.

Aligns Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence with Pentagon workload assignments to enhance capability, efficiency and effectiveness of the depots.

Enhances the capability of Army industrial facilities by making permanent the authority for them to enter into cooperative agreements with private sector contractors.

Focuses on the Pentagon’s efforts to do more to reduce the impact of corrosion. The Department of Defense’s own estimates show corrosion costs American taxpayers nearly $23 billion annually. Despite that fact—and the awareness that $37 is avoided for every $1 invested for corrosion mitigation and control actions—the Department Defense continues to fail to invest adequate resources to achieve these savings.

Total Workforce Management. Workforce costs are the greatest cost drivers in the Department of Defense. Just as with the sustainment of the industrial base, the Department of Defense must be held accountable for managing its workforce in the most efficient manner possible. Instead of a stove-piped approach to managing the Pentagon’s military, civilian and contractor workforce, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 requires the Department of Defense to review its manpower needs holistically, which includes addressing: What work needs to be done; does a military member or a government civilian need to do it; and, if not, can a contractor do it more efficiently and effectively?

As a result, the annual defense authorization bill requires the Department of Defense to project the annual civilian personnel and contractor requirements for support services to facilitate an improved awareness of the Pentagon’s manpower requirements.

The bill includes a provision that requires the Pentagon to develop a Total Force Management Plan that would determine the appropriate mix of military (active and reserve component), civilian and contractor personnel to meet the projected requirements.

The legislation also requires the Department of Defense to manage civilian personnel on the basis of the workload requirements and not on arbitrary cost targets.

Finally, the annual defense authorization act requires the Pentagon to enhance its accounting of contractors to include reporting of contractors in the annual report to Congress on the expenditures, work and accomplishments of the Department of Defense.

Reforming Department of Defense Reporting Requirements. The Department of Defense spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year producing and disseminating reports internally and to the Congress. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 would repeal a large number of these reports if they are redundant or no longer relevant. The legislation would also require the Department of Defense to transmit reports required by law to Congress electronically, which would dramatically reduce the printing and reproduction costs of the Department of Defense.

The annual defense bill would also mandate that the Secretary of Defense conduct a biennial review of Department of Defense reports required to be submitted to Congress. In doing so, the Secretary would have to evaluate the content, quality, cost and timeliness of the Department’s compliance with the reporting requirements. The legislation, while requiring this review, would allow the Secretary of Defense to recommend reports that could be amended or repealed.

The 2012 defense bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a biennial review of internal Department of Defense reports and take the necessary steps to eliminate or modify reports which are redundant, overly burdensome, of limited value, unjustifiably costly or otherwise determined to unduly reduce the efficiency of the Department of Defense.

###

PHOTO CREDIT: Congressman Howard P. Buck McKeon: Washington, D.C. Office U.S. House of Representatives 2184 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 ph: (202) 225-1956 fax: (202) 226-0683

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: House Armed Services Committee 2340 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 226-8980 Fax: (202) 225-0858

John Boehner’s address to The Economic Club of New York LIVE VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

John Boehner’s address to The Economic Club of New York LIVE STREAMING VIDEO online. WATCH LIVE VIDEO: Speaker John Boehner Address on Jobs, Debt, Gas Prices

Tune in to watch LIVE STREAM Speaker Boehner’s address to The Economic Club of New York live online 05/09/11 7:00 PM ET

Speaker Boehner will highlight efforts to create a better environment for private sector job growth by cutting government spending, preventing job-crushing tax hikes, eliminating excessive federal regulations, and opening new markets for American goods.

He’ll address skyrocketing gas prices, and discuss the importance of expanding American energy production to create jobs and stopping government policies that are driving up the cost of energy.

And he’ll describe the importance of lifting our crushing burden of debt while preserving and protecting critical programs like Medicare for current and future retirees. And he’ll note that there will be no increase in the national debt limit without serious spending cuts and meaningful budget reforms.

Here are the details of tonight’s live stream of Speaker Boehner’s remarks:

WHAT: WATCH LIVE Speech by Speaker John Boehner to The Economic Club of New York

WHEN: Monday, May 9, at 7:00 PM ET

WHERE: Online HERE

We hope you’ll log on, tune in, and interact with others watching Boehner’s address. See you !

- Speaker Boehner’s Press Office

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT Remarks by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Economic Club of New York, New York, NY As Prepared for Delivery May 9, 2011

“Chairman Tisch, thank you for that introduction. And thank you for the chance to be here.

“Let me start by expressing my admiration for what you do. You come from many different backgrounds. But you're united by a common interest in the prosperity and security of our nation.

“Last night marked one week since the operation against Osama bin Laden, the man who orchestrated the horrific attack upon this city nearly 10 years ago.

“Bringing justice to Bin Laden was an important moment for America and all of the free world. But the challenges that lie ahead here at home remain formidable.

“I'm grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts tonight on how we need to address those challenges together, as a nation.

“I came to be Speaker of the House by way of small business.

“Before I ran for Congress, I was president of a small business in West Chester, Ohio -- Nucite Sales. We were manufacturers representatives in the packaging and plastics industry.

“But Nucite wasn't my first life experience with small business. That came earlier, when my brothers and I grew up mopping the floors of Andy's Cafe, a tavern outside of Cincinnati established in the 1930s by my grandpa, Andrew, and run for decades by my dad, Earl.

“It would be fair to say I'm not from around here. I come from a working class family of what you'd call Kennedy Democrats. I have 11 brothers and sisters.

“These experiences taught me a lot, long before I entered government service.

“They taught me our economy is a product of our people. Our economy does best when government respects our people enough to give them the freedom to do what they do best.

“I believe our mission as legislators is to liberate our economy from the things that impede growth. . .to provide clear policies, so that innovators and entrepreneurs have the green light to move forward and create jobs, without having to worry about second-guessing from Washington.

“My message to you tonight is that we will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we commit ourselves to government policies that will let our economy achieve long-term growth. Our economy won't grow as long as we continue to trip it up with short-term gimmicks from Washington.

“Many of our problems can be traced to a misguided belief by politicians that the American economy is something that can be controlled or micromanaged or influenced positively by government intervention and borrowing.

“All too often, rather than providing long-term policies that will help our economy expand, government offers short-term fixes that do little right away, and end up making things worse over time.

“When things aren't going well in our economy, the impulse in Washington is usually to respond with something big...something quote-unquote ‘comprehensive.’ The assumption is that this will provide reassurance to job creators. But it usually has the opposite effect in practice.

“We saw this with Dodd-Frank. There was a financial meltdown in our country, and millions of Americans were hit hard. But Washington's response was all wrong.

“We got a banking system that is less competitive, pitting the small community banks like the ones in my district against giant banks that the federal government deems ‘too big to fail.’

“We got a consolidated banking system with a small number of large firms operating as public utilities.

“We got a lot of new rules that make job creation and investment more difficult.

“And the government mortgage companies that triggered the whole meltdown went untouched.

“For job creators, the ‘promise’ of a large new initiative coming out of Washington is more like a threat. It freezes them. Instead of investing in new employees or new equipment, they make the logical decision to stand pat.

“The American economy is the sum total of the hard work and ingenuity of our people.

“When the economy grows, it's not because of a new government program or spending initiative. It's because a lot of people in the private sector worked hard, and were successful in overcoming the obstacles thrown in their path.

“The rash of ‘stimulus’ legislation passed by Congress in recent years has been one of those obstacles.

“The recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in America.

“The effect of adding nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt -- money borrowed mostly from foreign investors -- caused a further erosion of economic confidence in America, and increased uncertainty for millions of private-sector job creators.

“The massive borrowing and spending by the Treasury Department crowded out private investment by American businesses of all sizes.

“Americans were told the stimulus would create millions of new jobs, and that most of them would be private sector jobs. It didn't happen.

“Job creators were looking for certainty. You don't get long-term certainty from short-term government programs.

“The lesson of the stimulus era is that short-term government intervention is no substitute for long-term economic investment, private initiative, and freedom.

“I believe it's time to leave that era behind.

“We've also seen the arrogance of government recently in the skyrocketing gas prices our citizens and businesses are dealing with.

“There's a clear connection between high gas prices and the weak dollar that some in Washington have quietly welcomed over the past couple of years.

“It's well known that when you print tons of money, the dollar sinks, and the price of food and energy rises -- significantly. Yet the American people are told there is nothing that can be done about it. This is simply untrue.

“Washington has also kept most of our nation's vast energy resources under lock and key for decades, over the clear objections of the American people -- the people who own those resources.

“If we had listened to the people decades ago -- or even a few years ago -- many of these resources would be available to us right now to lower the price of energy. And we would probably have about a million private-sector jobs in America that we don't currently have.

“Instead what Washington has done is raise the specter of higher taxes, creating more uncertainty for those in America who create jobs.

“Washington's arrogance has triggered a political rebellion in our country.

“I don't think ‘rebellion’ is too strong of a word. The revolt we have seen by ordinary citizens over the past few years is like nothing we've seen in our lifetime. And it's happening in part because the arrogant habits of Washington are having real economic consequences.

“The debt limit debate presents our nation's leaders with the opportunity to reverse these habits and prove that we're starting to get the message. It's a chance to change course and admit that reactionary, short-term Washington solutions aren't always best.

“Creating a sustainable fiscal structure for the federal government is essential for long-term economic growth. Particularly when it comes to entitlements.

“We have a chance to provide certainty to job creators by signaling that our government is finally set to take a new approach when it comes to the spending and borrowing that has put us so deeply in debt.

“As you know, the president has asked Congress to increase the debt limit, and to do so without preconditions.

“There are those who insist we shouldn't ‘play games’ with it.

“Others have gone further. One prominent figure even went so far as to say ‘the people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of Al-Qaeda terrorists.’

“With all due respect, this is the arrogance of power -- and the American people won’t stand for it.

“This is the time to end the spending binge and prioritize and modernize what we spend.

“There's a reason the debt limit can't be increased without a vote of Congress. The debt limit is set in statute specifically so that the executive and legislative branches of our government have to deal with the difficult fiscal choices we face.

“I know there are many in this room who are uneasy with this debate. I understand your concerns.

“It's true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.

“To increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our debt -- in defiance of the will of our people -- would be monumentally arrogant and massively irresponsible.

“It would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that America still is not serious about dealing with our spending addiction.

“It would erode confidence in our economy and reduce certainty for small businesses. And this would destroy even more American jobs.

“So let me be as clear as I can be. Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.

“We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions.

“They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.

“And with the exception of tax hikes -- which will destroy jobs -- everything is on the table. That includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare, because we all know, with millions of Baby Boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable.

“If we don’t act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon. That's the warning we got from Standard & Poor's a few weeks ago.

“If we fail to use this as a moment to demonstrate that we're getting serious about fixing the debt, the result will be fewer jobs, less confidence, and more uncertainty.

“The debt limit debate is critical because it's forcing us to make a choice right now as a nation. It's a choice between the policies of the past, and a new vision that acknowledges we can't tax, borrow and spend our way back to prosperity.

“The big myth of the current budget debate is the notion that in order to balance the budget, we have to raise taxes.

“The truth is we will never balance the budget and rid our children of debt unless we cut spending and have real economic growth. And we will never have real economic growth if we raise taxes on those in America who create jobs.

“I ran for Congress in 1990, the year our nation's leaders struck a so-called bargain that raised taxes as part of a bipartisan plan to balance the budget.

“The result of that so-called bargain was the recession of the early 1990s. It wasn't until the economy picked back up toward the end of that decade that we achieved a balanced budget.

“Today some seem intent on recycling the 1990 budget deal, only this time with much larger tax increases.

“That's not going to happen, and I've told that to the president. A tax hike would wreak havoc not only on our economy's ability to create private-sector jobs, but also on our ability to tackle the national debt.

“Balancing the budget requires spending cuts and economic growth. We won't have economic growth if we raise taxes and fail to address the drivers of our debt.

“The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators -- uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs.

“If we're serious about balancing the budget and getting our economy back to creating jobs, tax hikes should be off the table.

“I mentioned I was raised in a family of Kennedy Democrats. It was before this very club in 1962 that President John F. Kennedy said the following: ‘Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our [needs] keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.’

“Rather than increase government spending, President Kennedy told the New York Economic Club, we should cut taxes significantly, and take steps to ‘increase incentives and the availability of investment capital’ for employers.

“I would note that my colleagues and I are not calling for tax cuts in our budget. Rather, we're calling for an end to the threat of tax hikes -- and a fundamental reform of the tax code -- to provide certainty to those in our country who create jobs. We're calling for an end to the government spending binge that is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital needed for job creation.

“There's another myth I need to address, and that is the myth that addressing our debt challenges requires ‘pain.’

“Addressing our debt requires action. ‘Pain’ comes only from inaction.

“Suffering comes from standing pat and waiting for investors, job creators, and capital markets to impose a solution before elected leaders cannot.

“Root-canal economics has a name, and its name is Doing Nothing. The greatest threat to our economy and our future is doing nothing.

“We urgently need to enact reforms that will protect and preserve critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“If we do nothing, as some propose, that guarantees benefit cuts for seniors.

“Let me repeat that, because it’s a crucial point that is too often overlooked.

“If we do nothing, seniors’ benefits will be cut.

“And to those who contend that the economy is too weak to take on the challenge of entitlement reform -- I would simply say, you've got it backwards.

“The truth is that making fundamental reforms to these programs would be good for the economy -- and good for the next generation.

“It's possible to make changes in a way that will ensure future beneficiaries will have access to the same kinds of options as Members of Congress currently have.

“The budget put forth by our Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, accomplishes this.

“And instead of raising taxes, it calls for fundamental reform of the tax code -- a priority for us that will be led by Dave Camp of Michigan, the chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means.

“There are also other steps that can be taken immediately to help free our economy and support private-sector job creation. Many of them are outlined in the Pledge to America, the governing agenda we put forth last year by listening to the people.

“We can stop the Environmental Protection Agency from proceeding with a backdoor energy tax that will further increase gas prices and destroy jobs.

“We can pass the REINS Act, authored by my colleague Geoff Davis of Kentucky. It requires congressional approval of any new government rule with an estimated economic cost of $100 million or more.

“We can use trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea to create jobs and boost our economy by opening new markets to American exports.

“Coupled with the fundamental spending reforms and tax reforms I've described, these policies will clear a path for long-term, sustained economic growth.

“With such policies in place, the federal budget can be balanced.

“In closing, let me say I'm humbled by the opportunity to serve our country.

“We owe it to the people of our country to ensure that the opportunities our generation had are there for current and future generations.

“We owe them a humbler government that lives within its means and values the entrepreneurial drive of our people, with policies that unleash the awesome potential of our economy.

“For those of us in Washington, this has to be our focus.

“Until our economy is back on track and the American Dream has been restored, there can be no rest.

“It starts with freedom. In America, it always has.

“Thanks for the opportunity to be with you tonight.”

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

VIDEO CREDIT: SpeakerBoehner

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Jack's Story: Government "All About Regulations" VIDEO

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released Jack's Story: Government "All about Regulations," the first in a three part video series detailing how government regulations impact Ohio small business owner Jack Buschur and his company, Buschur Electric Incorporated. Founded in 1978, Buschur Electric grew to support 30 jobs in Minster, OH until the down economy and costly compliance with byzantine government regulations forced the company to lay off 12 workers beginning in 2009. This is Jack's story of how rules written by bureaucrats in Washington affect real communities, job creators and their families across America.

"The regulations and the paperwork problems government throws at small business today is just becoming tremendously overwhelming," Buschur says in the video. "So much of it has nothing to do with safety or creating business. It's all about regulations."

Earlier this year, Buschur testified before the Oversight Committee that government safety and environmental regulations -- imposed by Washington with little meaningful consultation with regulated job creators -- create an uncertain business environment, require time-consuming and costly compliance, and unleash unintended consequences undermining the purported benefits of regulation.

VIDEO and TEXT CREDIT: oversightandreform