Latest Breaking News On - Lamen - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Week With Joshua Johnson 20201221

so how can you view the once in a lifetime? nasa says they are bright enough to see even from most big cities. and hour after sunset, look southwest. you should be able to see the conjunction with the naked eye. you'll have a one or two hours. if you have a small telescope you can see the four largest moons. well, back down to earth. it's the top of the hour. here at msnbc in new york. senators have reached a deal on covid relief. now they just need to vote on it. this is "the week." it has been eight months in the making. we finally have a deal. >> at long last we have a bipartisan breakthrough the country needs. we need to promptly finalize text and avoid last minute obstacles and cooperate through both chambers. >> leaders reached an agreement tonight ton a $900 billion relief package. a short while ago congress voted to pass the continuing resolution. that will extend the deadline. congress has not voted on the deal itself. not yet. that vote should happen tomorrow. this final package will provide direct payments to americans. unemployment insurance. small business loans and funding for vaccine distribution. let's get straight to capitol hill. we're standing by and watching the machinations of the process. where do things stand? >> so, at this moment, we are waiting for this senate to vote on the one day extension of government funding. as you said that gives them more time to pass this covid are leaf deal. we are waiting for text of the legislation. something that hasn't been released. and something that lawmakers rank and file have not gotten done themselves. senators and house members have also not seen the text of the legislation. and haven't read the details of this legislation. but the thought is they will get it relatively soon and read it over night and prepare for a vote on monday. tomorrow the house will go first. there will be some debate over the legislation. and then the house will take the vote and the senate will follow suit. the goal is get it to the president's desk by midnight tomorrow. and that will also include a government funding bill to fund the government for the rest of the year. so their year will be mostly wrapped up. >> one of the final stumble blocks had to do with the objection from a republican if pennsylvania. who was upset over a program through the federal reserve that had been used for small and medium size business lending and also for some bond buying for state and local government. what was it that broke that log jam? is the program gone. did they keep it? >> so this was a hold up that wasn't even completely related to aid for the people who are hurting in this economic disaster. who are people are being impacted by covid. this held up the legislation the negotiations for two days. let me explain. this is for a pandemic federal reserve and treasury department lending program for small and medium size businesses. it was created in the cares act and meant to expire at end of this year. lots of the money didn't get used. $430 billion of those funds are actually going to be reallocated to this $900 billion bill. so also that's another thing. this bill is actually not going to cost that much for taxpayers. at least half of it has been put out through the treasury. what happened with the a disagreement between the senator and democrats? they were concerned he wanted to ensure the lending programs could never be restarted. what they were concerned about is it would tie the hands of the biden administration and narrowed the language and agreed that it was satisfactory on both side. >> thank you. we'll keep an eye on the negotiations. in the meantime. this deal on covid relief is much needed. long awaited good news. we're setting records for new cases and death. 17.8 million confirmed cases so far. by our count. meanwhile, every day we're learning more about the maszive russian hack on government e-mail accounts. with all this going on the covid-19 negotiations and investigation into the hack. what is president trump up to? he is still fixed on the baseless he won the election. confirmed the president held a meeting this week and discussed naming powell a special counsel to investigate supposed voter fraud in the election. joining us now to help discuss this. a white house correspondent. the host of oh my world. and a former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the united flagss and former treasury spokesperson. and national political reporter for the "new york times." good to see the three of you. let me start with you shane, what's the mood like inside the white house right now? particularly with everything going on? >> all you have to do is follow trumps twitter feed and the mood is he's still focussed on the election he lost. and not many of the other crisis the country is facing. there were big events in the last week. big issues on capitol hill. he's not central to that. talking about the roll out of a vaccine. he's not made that a center piece. it was the vice president who was out there on camera taking the vaccine. instead he's doing fund raising. raising millions, tens of millions of dollars for a pandemic he'pack he'll have after he leaves office kp trying it over turn the election results already certified. >> you have been reporting on what the president will be doing towards 2024. he wants to run again and the amount of cash he has. particularly the money raised in places like georgia where there are the senate run offs next month. >> i think one thing that we reported this week that he doesn't want to talk too much about what's going to happen after 2020. he's focussed on what's going on right now. yes, he has been raising millions of dollars that could fund the future politically. in the meantime, he is just focussed entirely on the fact that he still believes this election was rigged and won it. and he needs to to do everything he can to overturn the results. that led to joe biden victory. including a filing today by the campaign challenging some decisions by the pennsylvania supreme court. going up to the u.s. supreme court. which is the first time directly going up that high without being part of the texas lawsuit that ended up getting -- not being looked at. it's one step after the other. that is where the president's thoughts and focus have been. >> another big story has to do with the big hack of a number of government agencies by russia. something the president has down played. i wonder what you make of that particularly because cyber espionage and warfare is not a game only the russians are playing. they maybe playing it dirtier than most. but i find it hard to believe that the united states doesn't have at least some tools to do spying. whether it was the kind of tools that edward snow den blew the whistle on or anything else. >> that's right. president trump down played this. he seems checked out. the president of the united states is not a job where you can check out. he has said he tried yesterday to say this may have been china. which goes against secretary pompeo said. he said it looks like the russians are behind this. that's clear. it is not a normal for countries like russia and china, iran and north korea to hack the government systems. we were aware of it. i have no doubt that the government is aware of this. the cyber defense systems were not strong enough. in this case, it was a very sophisticated hack. the russians hacked the supply chain. they hacked the private companies that provide the software to the government. when people were installing and update they invited the malicious hardware in. the problem is when there's no statement and nobody has summoned the ambassador. and no sanctions. and no actions against the diplomatic and intelligence presence of the russian, they have no fear. china has no fear. they'll continue to do this activity and now it falls on biden's lap to beef up the defense resources and make it so costly countries will not try to even make attempt to hack the systems. >> can i get your reaction to something that senator romney of utah said today. he made the rounds on the sunday shows and gave assessment of the way that president trump is spending the last month of his time in the white house. 30 days from today inauguration day. >> this really sad in a lot of respects and embarrassing. the president could be writing the last chapter of add mirs with a victory lap with regard to the vaccine. he's leaving washington with a whole series of conspiracy theories and things that are nutty and loop pi. people are shaking their heads wondering what has gotten into this man. >> what is your sense of the strategy? including deflects blame from russia. if he wants to run again in 2024. it seems like an odd way to end your time instead of touting the things that you have done in saying i'm going to run again so i can do more good for the american people. it doesn't make sense strategically to me. >> the vaccine is a good example. he could be taking a victory lap. for the government and private sector. the republican party long cheered. it's a huge success. thags not his focus. his focus is raising money and trying to spread the theories about why he lost. and sfifighting the fact he los. romney isn't the only republican who feels that way. he maybe the only senator speaking that. since the electoral college voted republicans have publicly accepted joe biden is the president-elect starting with mitch mcconnell. and many top deputies. the party is moving in that direction. donald trump maintains a magnetic pull on the republican party base. as long as the president controls the republican pear base, the republican party leadership in congress will be deferent shl to him and the his wishes. >> can we zoom out from president trump. we should be clear there's a career infrastructure of people who deal with cyber security. who deal with national security counter terror etc. how much of this actually even depends on any president as opposed to depending on the infrastructure that sort of exists to deal with attacks from russia and china and elsewhere. >> that's a good question. in terms of the actual defense mechanism for dealing with this, it's entirely on the people who daily job is to deal with that. it has to do with preventing it from happen again. and having a strong message from the top which in this case is president trump i think with a more traditional president or didn't have a complicated relationship russia. you would hear much stronger words about this from the white house than we have. >> briefly before we go, the president intimated this would be china. there's no evidence. at least not from the secretary to have state. china is a threat. it would be a mistake to take our eye off china as if they could not do something like this. they certainly could. i presume. this is not outside of their ability. >> absolutely. it wouldn't be a surprise at all. when i was in government the chinese hack had had the office of management and budget. it's not new activity for them. the russians are certainly very strong in this regard. they have been doing this activity for a quarter century. certainly longer than we have. the key here and following on the point about the steps to take to make the strong response is that if you have a strong response, you need to communicate immediately. to the whole world that we'll not standing for this. the united states is no stranger to pursuing cyber attacks. we need to do what we can to protect ourselves and our information as much as possible. or these countries are not going to fear using these again. >> good to see you all this evening. thank you. still to come the senate finally reaches a deal on coronavirus relief. it's welcome news for millions of americans including those lining up to get vaccines shipping now from pfizer and moderna. we will answer your most asked and most pressing questions about the vaccine. plus, should undocumented immigrants be left out of the census? the supreme court is being criticized for what critics call wait and see approach. first the headlines. >> good evening. some soft stories we're watching new zealand prime minister says stla more covid-19 vaccines than they need. the extra doses will go to neighbors. the car bomb in afghanistan capitol killed at least nine people this morning. violence spiked recently. this con tlasts peace talks with taliban and leaders trying to end years of war. she announced her pronouns are she and her. speaking about gender fluid identity in the past. using the pronouns felt very positive. more of "the week" after the break. did you know that your clothes can actually attract pet hair? with new bounce pet hair & lint guard, your clothes can repel pet hair. look how the shirt on the left attracts pet hair like a magnet! pet hair is no match for bounce. with bounce, you can love your pets, and lint roll less. if you have type 2 diabetes and risks for heart disease, you could land in the hospital with heart failure. for people like you, farxiga does more than lower a1c. farxiga also helps prevent hospitalization for heart failure. do not take if allergic to farxiga. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. stop taking and seek medical help right away. tell your doctor right away if you have red color in urine, or pain while you urinate, or a genital area infection, since a rare but serious genital infection may be lifethreatening. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. other serious side effects include dehydration, genital yeast and bacterial infections in women and men, urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and sudden kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. answer the alert. ask your doctor if farxiga could do more for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. who should be next in line for the coronavirus vaccine? cdc released new recommendations today. a panel recommends the next batch should go to anyone 75 and older. as well as to workers essential to the economy. those include teachers, factory workers. police, firefighter and grocery store workers. in the thard wave, priority to people age 65 to 74. and over age 16 with medical conditions at high risk. millions of doses are shipped all over country. many are eager to get shots. many are skeptical. everyone has questions and concerns. tonight, let's answer some of them. joining us to help is internal medicine physician and medical contributor. dr. roy, good evening. >> happy sunday. >> i love answering audience questions. we have some. let's start with the first one from a viewer who asked please talk about the risk from a covid-19 shot. i'm hearing rumors. i want facts. i have been told that bells palsy is a side effect of the vaccine. it's a sudden weakness in the facial muscle. makes your face look like it's drooping. have you heard of that. >> yes. i have treated patients with bells palsy and you're right. it's a paralysis or muscle twitching. causing drooping. so, so far what we have seen is of the 37,000 people who have been vaccinated, seven cases have been seen. both with the pfizer and moderna. however, if you do the math. that's 99.98% who didn't get it. so these numbers are this incidents is fairly consistent with the general population of bells palsy. we're not the manufacturers do not think there's a correlation. that said, both pfizer and moderna are closely nf investigating the cases. >> my name is miles. i'm a 61 year-old black male. and excellent physical health. hi a severe allergic reaction to a flu vaccine 20 years ago. my fiancee is a 57 year-old black female with asthma. i'd like to know if it's advisable for either of us to take the vaccine. thank you. >> good question. before you answer i should note nothing you hear from us stont a substitute for the advice from your own doctor about your situation. general will speaking. >> what a wonderful question. according to the cdc, if you had a severe reaction to any other vaccine, not covid. other vaccine or injection. the recommendation is talk to your doctor. as for your fiancee, she falls under the category of yes get the vaccine. she's black, and she has asthma. which is considered a risk factor for the getting the severe disease. so she recommended to get the vaccine. you, talk to your doctor first. >> best of luck to you both. let's get to a question from robin. >> i work for a hospital in indiana. i have a set date for my pfizer vaccine. my questions are, what would happen if i received my initial pfizer vaccine and then my hospital runs out of the vaccine. due it low stock. what would happen if i'm outside of the time frame to get my second pfizer vaccine? would i have to start over? thank you. happy holidays. >> thank you for the questions. and being a front line worker trying to keep us safe. >> yeah. thanks. great question and thank you for the work you do and already setting that date. look, we recognize it's going to be difficult for some people to really strictly adhere to the 28 days. that said, we're encouraging and strong advising to come back as close as possible. the short answer is we don't have the data to answer that question. we don't really know. that's why we're strongly recommend people to come back. during that time frame. >> let's get to a few more quick answers. let's listen. >> my question is this. is it okay for transplant recipients to receive the vaccine in thank you. >> doctor? >> great question. while we don't have exact information on the covid vaccine on transplant recipients. we know they have clinically worse out comes from covid-19 infection. the benefits of vaccination out weigh any theoretical risk. the recommendation is to it's safer to get the vaccine than to get the disease. >> one last quick question. if someone has a severe allergic reaction to the pfizer vaccine, should they try the moderna one instead? or do they have similar ingredients and only need one dose given they already had one dose from pfizer? >> yeah. so the recommendation -- thanks for that question. let's not mix and match. we're not recommending that happen. the cdc i believe does say you get a severe reaction from the first dose, do in the go back and get a second dose. that applies to one company. not both. i think do not mix and match. that's the recommendation. >> i love answering these questions for viewers. we will answer more questions as the vaccine roll out continues. again, nothing you hear from us tonight substitutes for the advice of your doctor for your medical situation. regardless of what questions you have. ask your doctor. we appreciate you making time. happy holidays, thank you. >> you too. bye. >> president trump appointed three supreme court justices. when the effort to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census came before the court. they punted the issue for another day. what might that tell us about how the court will rule going forward? one of the worst things about a cold sore is how it can make you feel. but, when used at the first sign, abreva can get you back to being you in just 2 and a half days. be kinder to yourself and tougher on your cold sores. this holiday, get the phones everyone wants on the 5g america's been waiting for. verizon 5g is next level. now get one of our best 5g phones on us when you buy one. and get $500 when you switch. plus select unlimited plans include disney+, hulu, and espn+. 100% obsessed with "the mandalorian." i watch a lot of sports. it has all my favorite shows. and right now, the gaming the whole family will love is also on us. it's like a gift on top of another gift. gifts keep coming at you. everywhere. this is 5g from america's most reliable network. damom, look!get sare you okay?? head home this holiday with the one you love. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer today for exceptional lease and financing offers at the mercedes-benz winter event. unlike ordinary memory want supplements-ter? neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that fuel 5 indicators of brain performance. memory, focus, accuracy, learning, and concentration. try our new gummies for 30 days and see the difference. on friday, six members of the supreme court conservative majority gave trump a temporary victory. they dismissed a challenge to the plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from u.s. census data. used to assign congressional seetds in each state. the census always counted every person. not just citizens. but the court didn't actually rule that the administration plan would legal. it simply ruled that the challenge to that plan was premature. officials will reportedly not be done with the work before president trump leaves office. and that would make the case moot. but why not make a decision on the merit? why leave it up to future courts? for more on that let's speak to a senior legal reporter. she covers the courts, justice and intersection of law and politics. why didn't the court rule on the merits. why did they only rule on whether the case was timely? >> what the conservative justices said was that the case had failed to clear the baseline threshold hurdles that any party has to clear for a case to be right. for a court to decide. what they said was that the reports not done yet. we don't know what the numbers are. we don't know how many undocumented immigrants will be excluded from the final count. until we know that, the case is simply premature. what the three liberal justices said was we know that the administration wants to decrease the count in states with larger pop lags of undocumented immigrants. it doesn't change the intended effect and the harm to the states that sued. the conservative justices said no, come back later. depending on how this shakes out. >> what about the idea that all of this is moot because the census won't be done before trump leaves office and pre presumably a biden administration can reverse the plan anyway? >> the court is upper case c conservative. and lower case. a lot of times if they can avoid resolving a big constitutional question with far reaching implications and resolve it on narrow ground or types of procedural threshold issues that have to be addressed first. they tend to be inclined to take that route. it's not surprising this would be the out come. especially on the eve of a new administration. it's not clear what will happen when the president-elect becomes president. and rescinds the memo that sends this in motion. and the fact that action itself could face legal action of its own. if there are republican attorneys general out there prepared to sue the new administration. the justices are mindful there are legal messes on legal messes at play here. >> clarify the logic. for people that don't watch of the court. it makes sense to a lamen like me. if you are asked a question and we come to you and it's your job to answer the question. answer the question. don't make us wait and keep asking and asking to get the answer to the same legal issue. that was the contention in the dissent from the three liberal justices that the law is clear on what the census is supposed to do. what is the point of punting any legal question at the supreme court? >> there's a strain of thought that it is not the job of the courts to make policy. to the extent that justices feel like what they're being asked to do is step if for the executive branch or legislative branch and go beyond being an umpire. just calling balls and strike. but taking the big step of deciding the out come of a very big political fight. they tend to not want to do that. and are mindful of the public perception of them as objective, non-political actors. versus active participants in this process. so that's why a will the of times you see big cases decided on what seem like very narrow procedural grounds. >> what about the future of the court as it relates to what the decision might tell us. it's worth remembering of the jix justices who ruled in the majority. three were appointed by president trump. kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. and she was very caged during her confirmation hearing about any legal philosophy. include things people on both sides of the aisle expect her to answer. does this tell us anything about what the court might look like in the future? the legacy of the president trump might be on the supreme court? >> it is absolutely a more conservative court. even to the extent the chief justice sided with the court liberal in the past. there's no question that he is still conservative. you have a 6-3 conservative court taking up questions of executive action by a biden administration. trying to roll back the actions by the trurp administration. cases coming again about religious freedom issues mpt lgbtq rights. likely to cases on the second amendment and gun right cases. where conservatives hope the support for the judicial nominee pays off. down the road. >> thanks very much. finally. some good news if the pandemic. the senate reached a deal as millions of vaccines are shipped out across the country. antivaccination groups are targeting local media. following social mode ya crack downs on misinformation. into a smaller life? are your asthma treatments just not enough? then see what could open up for you with fasenra. it is not a steroid or inhaler. it is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. it's an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. nearly 7 out of 10 adults with asthma may have elevated eosinophils. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils, a key cause of asthma. it helps to prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can reduce the need for oral steroids like prednisone. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. could you be living a bigger life? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. could you be living a bigger life? i'm frlocker room manager best din the league.nt i'm here to help you protect your clothes from getting damaged in the wash. that's why i use new downy defy. that's what's up! we have an assistant locker room manager? help protect your clothes with new downy defy damage. - [announcer] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep cleans and empties itself into a base you empty as little as once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. tonight... i'll be eating roasted cauliflower tacos with spicy chipotle sauce. [doorbell chimes] thank you. [puck scores] oooow yeah!! i wasn't ready! you want cheese to go with that whine?? this pandemic is hopefully a once in a lifetime public health crisis. access to information is vital. half of u.s. adults named local news major source for news on covid-19. no wonder we found local media being the latest target for misinformation. antivaccination activists have been shut out of the platforms like you tube and facebook. some pivoted to real world events and local news to amplify the message. unfortunately, it worked. we found local media to give activists a microphone to spread misinformation. joining us now npr public editor. a journalistic lbetween listeners. and jus about my favorite person to talk about journalism ethics. good evening. >> what form does this misinformation often take? it seems like in some cases it's not as blatant as just saying something out right false. it's in the way a story is shaded or presented or miscontext lized that apeepearso be the problem. >> protesters who go out and protest a vaccination being distributed at like a va center or something. and the tv crews go out and interview them. the people that they interview often say things for which they are not qualified to comment on. they say things that aren't true. and they spread misinformation. and if those interviews go unchecked they become a source of bad information for the viewers that are watching. now, not all local tv stations do this. in fact, i would say probably most of them are doing a good job covering this. but there are many minutes of air time. that local tfgs stations have to put stories on. and one story done badly can do a lot of damage. >> how do you strike that balance? we deal with this in national net work news in cover the trump administration. you can't pretend the president doesn't exist and doesn't speak and word don't matter. at the same time purveying the words gives him oxygen and allow to have the impact. how does a journalist strike a balance in that regard? >> you have to look at the end user. the viewer. when it comes to local television and a reasonable conclusion that person is going to take away. then as a journalist it's your job to ensure that the way that you deliver the information gives that viewer access to accurate information. so if you have somebody saying something that is false. you either not to use that interview. or now need to put in front of that that this person is about to say something false. so that the viewer knows that bad information is coming. and then come behind and say that wasn't true. this person is saying something that isn't true. here's the right information. the best choice is to not air the stuff that's factually untrue. sometimes it's hard to do. you mention the president. but when you have a protester on the street, it's easier. you can selectively -- if your goal is document there are people who are upset this vaccine is distributed. then, you can document that. without giving them a megaphone to share bad information. >> i think also for some stations it's just good pictures. television is a visual media. sometimes the protests -- compelling. not positive. but sometimes just the visual. getting the tape. when you have a certain amount of air time to fill and local stations are doing more local news. it's hard to say no to that compared to covering a school board budget committee meeting. as important as it maybe. >> yeah. o protest will make much better tv than a school board meeting. you can show the -- there are methods. you can show the video. you can use it as b role and have a doctor giving good information. you can show the protesters and chants. the picket line. and then you can interview somebody from the cdc. many government agencies and healthcare organizations have made materials available. so, really it's not -- there's not much of an excuse there to say well, it is good tv. because there's a lot of good tv out there that could be brought into these stories to make them accurate. >> before i let you go, what advice do you have for viewers to make them savvy and dealing with the misinformation? >> well, you shouldn't take guidance from someone who is not qualified to give it. somebody on the street discussing what happened during the trial phases for the vaccine. that person is probably doesn't know what he or she is talking about. that's the first thing. if you see somebody who is saying information about the vaccine that that person isn't qualified to say, at least look for expertise. that's the most important thing. >> i love to give the advice of asking yourself would this person get in trouble for lying to me. i would get in trouble. i would lose my career. if the person on tv suffers no consequence for giving you bad information. why are you listening to them? >> good advice. >> public editor and with the pointer institute as well. always good to see you. >> quick update on the breaking news. the house passed a one day stopgap bill to fund the government. senate passed the bill also. this is not the covid-19 relief package that $900 billion bill. this is a bill to keep the government funded so that congress can come back and pass the other bill. the senate passed this stopgap spending bill. to keep the lights on. it passed the house earlier. government funding will expire at the end of the day tomorrow. and presumably the new bill will both fund the government and pay for covid relief. presumably. we'll keep an eye on that tonight and tomorrow. last night we asked all the non-medical doctors in the audience what the title means to them in light of an op-ed calling jill biden to drop the word doctor in front of her name. to shorten colds! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds! zicam zinc that cold! it shortens colds! to customizes yourcan gocar insurancetual.com so you only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ subaru created the share the love event.n years ago, where our new owners could choose a national or hometown charity. and subaru and our retailers would proudly make a donation. but now, in times like these, companies are having a hard choice to make. but subaru is more than a car company. and as charities struggle, we cannot just stand by. which is why we plan to donate over twenty four million dollars, again this year. the subaru share the love event, going on now. before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. gillette proglide and proglide gel. five blades and a pivoting flexball designed to get virtually every hair on the first stroke, while washing away dirt and oil. so you're ready for the day with a clean shave and a clean face. if you have type 2 diabetes and risks for heart disease, you could land in the hospital with heart failure. for people like you, farxiga does more than lower a1c. farxiga also helps prevent hospitalization for heart failure. do not take if allergic to farxiga. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. stop taking and seek medical help right away. tell your doctor right away if you have red color in urine, or pain while you urinate, or a genital area infection, since a rare but serious genital infection may be lifethreatening. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. other serious side effects include dehydration, genital yeast and bacterial infections in women and men, urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and sudden kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. answer the alert. ask your doctor if farxiga could do more for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. - [announcer] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep cleans and empties itself into a base you empty as little as once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. you can adjust your comfort on both sides - your sleep number setting. can it help me fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable will it help me keep up with mom? you got this so you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. don't miss our weekend special. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 48 months on all smart beds. ends monday. to learn more, go to sleepnumber.com. let's be honest. quitting smoking is hard. like, quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so try making it smaller, and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette. before we go, let's read some e-mails. we got so many great responses from last night's question. we asked if you refer to yourself as doctor. sandra writes, i took a phd in business ethics in 1991 to top off my masters of business administration. i, like dr. biden, was proud of my accomplishment. i used the title of doctor in my academic career. male professors were always called by the title of doctor. the deepest problem i have with the wsj article is not about who should use the title of doctor. it is about that biden was d denigrated because she is a woman. has anyone done that to a man who used the title of doctor while not a medical practitioner. there was pure and simple go back to your housewivery, little lady. cat writes, i have a phd and do not refer to myself as doctor. i put the letters behind my name in work correspondence but would not refer to myself as doctor. i don't worry about how people will treat me if they know. my degree is something no one can ever take from me and that instills a certain confidence, making a title unnecessary. dr. sheila d. williams shared, yes, i most certainly refer to myself as dr. sheila d. williams. i often write my name as dr. sheila d. williams pphd. i even put a trademark on my name, yes, i did. i earned it. as an african-american woman, i dare not reduce or minimize who i am or what i've earned in order to massage the egos of those less educated. that's not my issue. that's theirs. go ahead, dr. sheila d. williams, phd. thank you for sharing your stories. stick around for the global citizen prize hosted by john legend. >> i'm joshua johnson. thank you for making time for us. please have a happy and healthy holiday season. stay safe and make it a wonderful week. good night. t a wonderful week good night when you're through with powering through, it's time for theraflu hot liquid medicine. powerful relief so you can restore and recover. theraflu hot beats cold. this on us, on every plan! get an iphone 12 with 5g, and if you're 55 and up, switch to our essentials 55 plan and save 50% on your bill vs. the other guys. that's right, iphone 12 on us! holiday on with t-mobile. damom, look!get sare you okay?? head home this holiday with the one you love. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer today for exceptional lease and financing offers at the mercedes-benz winter event. [phone rings] "sore throat pain? try new vicks vapocool drops in honey lemon chill for a fast-acting rush of relief like you've never tasted in... ♪ honey lemon ahh woo vicks vapocool drops now in honey lemon chill ythey customize yours lcar insurance. so you only pay for what you need. wow. that will save me lots of money. this game's boring. only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. welcome sto the 2020 global citizen prize,

Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle 20180322

so if that's me, then i am happy to go. >> yes, mark, it's you. averting a shutdown. the president tweets his support. are there enough votes to even get it to his desk? >> this may be the worst bill i have seen in my time in congress, the worst bill our leadership's ever allowed to come to the floor. >> tell us how you really feel. and what is in, what is out of this thing? is it going to pass before tomorrow's deadline? and how about this one? the apprentice, the porn star and the playmate. all three cases against the president ramping up, but which one poses the largest threat to trump and his actual presidency? >> we're looking at potential depositions. we're looking at potential discovery. it's not nothing. >> not nothing. we begin today with facebook ceo mark zuckerberg finally break his silence and offering an apology, five days after we learned about one of the worst data breach scandals in the company's history. i have a great team here to help break all of it down. first, a look at how we got here. last week news broke that a political data firm with very close ties to the trump campaign secretly obtained personal information for more than 50 million facebook users without their knowledge. lawmakers both in the united states and the uk began demanding answers along with the federal trade commission, which launched an official probe into the company's practices. wall street certainly took note. facebook stock dropped sharply. wiping out almost $50 billion in the company's value. ceo mark zuckerberg's own net worth plummeted 9 billion bucks. zuckerberg finally acknowledged the breach, admitting his company was partially to blame, write, quote, we have a responsibility to protect your data and if we can't, then we don't deserve to serve you. later, zuckerberg went on a social media tour to talk more about the breach and to lay out what facebook is going to do to protect your personal information. >> so this was a major breach of trust. and i'm really sorry that this happened. our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again. and there are few basic things that i think we need to to ensure that. >> so what exactly is facebook promising to do? first, zuckerberg says it's opening an investigation into all apps that had access to your data before facebook tightened its guidelines in 2014. second, facebook will limit what data those apps can access without you giving permission. they will only be able to access your napme and photo and e-mail address. and facebook will lay out a new tool to show you what apps have access to what. zuckerberg's apology tour answered some of the questions left unanswered by the massive data breach but lawmakers say they have serious concerns and the ceo seemed willing to address them. >> this is going to be an intensive process. but this is important. i mean this is something that in retrospect we clearly should have done up front with cambridge analytica. we should not have trusted the certification they gave up. we're not going to make that mistake again. our responsibility to our community is to make sure we secure the data. >> lawmakers in the united states and the uk are asking you to testify. everybody wants you to show up. will you testify before congress? >> so the short answer is i'm happy to if it's the right thing to do. what we try to do is send the person at facebook who will have the most knowledge about what congress is trying to learn. if that's me, then i am happy to go. >> mark, that someone is you. the buck stops at the top. i remind you, when the wall street ceos during the financial crisis had to answer questions, they went down to washington. when jamie dimon had to answer for a trade he had nothing to do with, he showed up. when wells fargo had a mass itch marketing fraud, he showed up. so elizabeth warren could do her thing. yes, mark zuckerberg, i realize it's uncomfortable, but it absolutely 100% is you, sir. let's bring my panel in. my old friend, kevin ruse, business columnist for "the new york times." ben white, chief economic correspondent for politico and cnbc contributor and elise jordan, "time" columnist and msnbc political analyst. i've got a full house and a good one because this is an important topic. kevin, you interviewed zuckerberg last night for "the new york times." do you think he said the right things to calm the storm? because for me, when i even hear him say we're so sorry we discovered this happened. they discovered it years ago. and facebook policies allow this kind of business. it's their business model. to take our profile information and sell it to advertisers. i'm not their customer, advertisers are. >> right. i think he's doing as much as he can to fix what essentially was a leak that happened years ago. this something that happened in 2014 and they're now just trying to sort of undo and put in place systems to prevent going forward. >> -- as much as he can would be we're going to stop facebook, we're going to shut it down until we have this fixed. as much as he can is not what he did. >> that's correct, yes. but he's now trying to put in place a system to prevent something like this from happening again. the problem is, in the years this was allowed this kind of data harvesting, millions of apps were built on top of facebook to grab people's information. that data's not going anywhere. it's just sort of sitting out in the world like radioactive material. we don't know -- facebook doesn't know who has it. facebook doesn't know how it's being used. they have no real way of clawing that back. and so this is sort of their attempt to say we're going to try to do better going forward. >> mark zuckerberg's defense, is there an argument to be made? no one even a few years ago would have ever guessed it could get this big. and it is a new company. it's only been in our eye really for the last ten years. so could one make the argument he created a monster, an extraordinary monster, and now it's time to revamp or revisit? because even zuckerberg couldn't have guessed it would get this big. >> i think that's the problem we keep seeing with facebook is they're constantly looking backwards, right. we saw this with them selling as to russian propaganda groups. they apologize. they put in place all these new restrictions. that's the same thing with this data crisis. yes, they stopped the loophole that allowed you to scoop up everybody's friend's data in 2014/2015, but they never did anything to make sure all that data was being used properly. now who knows how long these audits retrospectively are going to look, are going to take, and who knows what people can do with that data in the meantime before facebook gets in there to audit it. i think what facebook really needs to do is start looking at the world the way its worst users might and look at ways that facebook could be manipulated instead of always apologizing later on. >> okay, well then, isn't the government at some level needing to apologize? just like if you think about investment banking, if there weren't regulations on investment banks, structures would create more complicated tools, bigger derivatives on top of one another and on top of one another because that's what they do. they don't self-police. so as much as we could blame facebook, do we not have to blame the government for not putting guardrails on this? >> yes, sure, of course. there's obviously a lack of regulation in the space. the government is way behind in trying to regulate and manage the amount of data that somebody like facebook can compile and how they use it and how they sell it and where it goes. so regulators will take some blame. that's a big risk to facebook they're going to race to catch up. you look at zuckerberg in these interviews and he looks totally freaked out. and he should be. because the biggest existential crisis here for facebook is not about piecemeal regulation here and there. it's people deciding this deal we made with facebook to give them all the data in return for the ability to be in contact with our college friends and everybody else is a bad deal. we gave all this stuff away. let's not do that anymore. that's what -- i don't know if people delete facebook en masse, but they might. if they do, facebook is totally hosed. >> is that not the zillion dollar question? we're not seeing yet en masse people doing it. my facebook feed last night had as many posts the night before as did my instagram. >> they're talking about deleting. >> talking about it. users matter but advertisers matter. we have yet to see a major u.s. advertiser say i'm done with facebook. that's how facebook makes their money. >> well, so far, you haven't seen the public being that upset that this data has been potentially misused. and you look at the effect it's had on our political process. the 2016 election. and then just as recently as the alabama election, mark zuckerberg said in his recent slew of interviews there had been potential interference and they had sought to intervene and stop it through using ia. a lot of this cannot be automated. they have -- the government is -- seemed like he almost wants the government to regulate facebook so they do not have to make sure that their product is misusing their own consumer's information. >> well, and this is not entirely a problem of millicious intent. this is a problem of something being too big. you talk about investment banks being too big to fail. there's a real potential facebook is too big to manage. where do you focus your attention? is it on the midterm? is it on the elections? elections in italy, brazil? is it what happened in 2014 with data links? >> it's beyond comprehension. >> essentially the police for the entire world. i don't know how tenable that is. we need to step in and say this is too big, hang on, let's get it under control, let's maybe make it a little smaller so we can start to realize what's happening. they have 2 billion people. there's no way to do that. >> do we trust zuckerberg too much? they have the most brilliant, well-crafted pr on the planet. listen, lean in is an amazing book. sheryl samburg got to write that book because of the facebook platform. my mother has been telling me to lean in for 42 years. but they have won over the hearts minds of people. i want to poll -- back in 2010 business insider obtained messages between zuckerberg and a college friend. here's what he said. i have over 4,000 e-mails, pictures, addresses, sns. his friend responded, what, how'd you manage that one? zuckerberg said, people just submitted it. i don't know why. they trust me. dumb fs. izzy so listen, every time you see sheryl on tv, it's about community engagement. i got all these people's stuff, they're dumb fs? >> mark zuckerberg said there's no way could i have anticipated this sitting in my dorm room in 2004. people were very willing to share data early on. i want to say, it's not just facebook. this deal you're talking about is a deal we all made with the internet. >> this is an amazing point. >> so deleting one company -- our data's being bought and sold by every interaction we have online. >> we give it out. >> our credit card data's being sold. it's every interaction, being bought and sold. this is really an internetwide problem which is why i think you're right, regulators need to step in. in europe, they certainly are already. europe is breaking some of the rules on the road of data privacy and affirmative consent from users that the united states regulators might take a look at. >> do you buy the "we didn't realize" "i'm truly sorry"? because long after facebook knew that cambridge analytica mined data and misused information, peter teal, according to fec filings, who sits on the board of facebook and we know is a massive trump supporter, gave $1 million to a trump super pac that specifically was paying cambridge analytica for their services. >> yes, i don't think peter teal has as much of a say in sort of the day to day policies of the data -- >> if i'm on the board of facebook, you don't think i didn't know what cambridge analytica did? if i didn't, that's a bigger problem with corporate governance in the company. >> i think there's a lot of questions left to be answered about cambridge analytica. i think we still don't know whether they did or didn't have an effect on the election. we don't know how valuable the work they did on the trump campaign was. this larger issue of facebook during elections and political context is something really scary. is happening not just in the u.s. where, you know, the people in facebook speak the language, understand the political context. it's happening in places in the world where they have no idea what's going on, in myanmar, in sri lanka, in brazil. like, they're not experts in burmese politics. >> we're not either. our moms, our colleagues, our friends, read stories on facebook from accounts like moms demand good schools, yes america dotcom and they think it's a real news organization. they're not in myanmar, my mom's in jersey. >> your point, they're only story for stuff when we find out about it. it's clear a lot of the stuff they already knew about it and apologize when it becomes public. where is sheryl sandburg, by the way? that's why she's at this company. >> this pr response has been a disaster. i know they have some of the most well paid professionals in public relations in the world on retainer but the slowness of the response can only be attributed to mark zuckerberg and how quickly he wanted to respond. >> yes, because the skills of their pr machine has always been to keep everyone absolutely away from facebook. and when you have access to mark or sheryl, it is never access to dig into what goes on at the company. it's access to sheryl talking about her book and her missions far outside the company. >> true point -- >> she should get subpoenaed too. shouldn't be a choice for either one of them to go testify before congress. >> you can only hide for so long. >> facebook staffer on the hill. i don't know what a facebook staffer is. it's time for the executives. you know, the ones who get paid the big bucks. coming up, all the president's women, all three accusations, they're serious, but which one could potentially pose the biggest problem for president trump? but next, trump and chief of staff john kelly reportedly furious, i don't know about that, over the leak of briefing materials prepared for trump's call with vladimir putin. those materials instructed trump not to congratulate putin on his recent presidential victory but trump did exactly that. and jimmy fallon wonders what all the fuss is about. >> trump is now facing backlash for congratulating vladimir putin on his big election win. trump said, what's the big deal? i also congratulated him after my election win. so what is the big deal? get off my back. so, i needed legal advice, and i heard that my cousin's wife's sister's husband was a lawyer, so i called him. but he never called me back! if your cousin's wife's sister's husband isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal. you ok there, kurt? we're about to move. karate helps... relieve some of the house-buying... stress. at least you don't have to worry about homeowners insurance. call geico. geico... helps with... homeowners insurance? been doing it for years. i'm calling geico right now. good idea! get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be. welcome back. i'm stephanie ruhle. president trump is blasting critics of his congratulatory phone call to vladimir putin insisting he's right to, quote, get along with the russian president. but for a second straight day, members of his own party are saying the president should not be talking to putin at all. >> what they did in ukraine, what he's done in the baltics. what he's done in london, poisoning people with nerve gas, that's a criminal activity. i wouldn't have a conversation with a criminal. >> vladimir putin is not a friend. vladimir putin is a despot. the president of the united states was wrong to congratulate him. >> i'm not sure why the president felt like he needed to call and congratulate vladimir putin on what was a fake election. i think most of us don't see that as necessary. >> and let's remind you, when president obama had a phone call congratulating putin, it was republicans who went off, saying how inappropriate it was. i want to bring my latest panel in, evan mcmullin, a former cia operative who ran for president in 2016, and my friend eli stokeles, an msnbc political analyst. evan what do you say? trump says he's right to cultivate a good relationship with putin because russia can, quote, help solve problems in north korea, syria, ukraine, isis, iran, i mean, when he says syria, does he remember who funds assad? >> yes, right. of course it would be great if we could have a stronger relationship with vladimir putin but it can't be under vladimir putin's terms, right? a lot of the challenges we face internationally around the world are actually as a result in part of putin's activities in these places. he's empowering dictators around the world. when our president calls and congratulates him and repeats that publicly, he normalizes and legitimizes vladimir putin himself, which then serves to help embolden his activities around the world. that's what we see happening here with the more aggressive putin regime, both attacking our politic, our political systems as well as those in europe and even carrying out lethal attacks in europe which has been going on for some time. but the president, a president of the united states cannot legitimize a foreign dictator like this. it's good to get along, yes, we want that, but we can't do it on their terms. >> okay, and even if -- like we're not going to buy that president trump when it comes to russia is all about putting country before self. if president trump is focused on his own survival or thriving, eli, why wouldn't he avoid something like this, because it only looks more -- it only makes him look more culpable, you know, to those who think there was any russian collusion? >> it makes him look like he believes his political survival could depend on vladimir putin and that, you know, amidst the mueller probe it just seems like this is the behavior of someone who just cannot say anything tough to vladimir putin and everybody has to ask themselves why that might be. what do the russians have on this president, you know. there's obviously a national security strategy at the white house. people in this administration, nikki haley, h.r. mcmaster who are advocating for a tougher approach to russia, but the president just cannot get on that same track as his national security team, especially with russia. they can put things on paper. they can tell them what to do and what to say. but they can't actually get him to do it when the time comes. that has to be frustrating for a lot of those folks. >> we can never know what robert mueller knows. i try to keep a list of who does president trump never, ever, ever say anything bad about. and it's vladimir putin. it's ivanka. and it's stormy daniels. i'm wondering why. later today, house intelligence committee is going to vote on its final report on russian meddling. according one report, lawmakers have obtained either no information or incomplete information on 81% of the known contacts between trump officials and russians. if it's incomplete information, how could they possibly have any sort of summary or takeaway here unless it's just devin nunes trying to get this thing to go away? >> well, look, unfortunately, the house intelligence committee process, their investigation where it was nothing of the sort, i mean, it turned out to be an effort really to cover for the president. they hardly used their subpoena powers when important witnesses would come in, republicans would give them a pass again. having not subpoenaed them but not questioning them very seriously. this was not a real investigation. every single member of the committee who went along with that process on the republican side mostly, although i don't think -- i think there were some misgivings among some of them. all of them that went along with it are -- it's just a shameful dereliction of duty on such an important national security issue and voters really need to remember who they are. >> i just want to touch on the leak for a moment. i mentioned it earlier. president trump did regarding the briefing he got where it clearly said in caps do not congratulate. it was since leaked out that president trump didn't listen to that. and the white house is distressed. the white house is distressed that it would be leaked. john kelly made his way around, saying how disappointed he was. i spoke to a white house insider last night who told me really, because there were three people in the room when president trump made the call. h.r. mcmaster, his deputy, and john kelly. eli, what is your take on this? many are saying, well, listen, must be h.r. mcmaster, you know, who's a guy who says this is a national security risk and he wants the country to know. or could it be john kelly who wants to put the final nail in the coffin of mcmaster where it's been widely reported that president trump wants him out. >> that would be a pretty machiavellian move by john kelly. >> in this white house -- >> in this white house -- yes, you can't rule anything out. it doesn't have to be one of the three people in the room. any of them could have had a conversation with somebody else and explained how the call actually went. and then it could have come out that way. obviously the state department usually has a role in putting together these talking points, as well as folks with the nsc. outgoing secretary of state tillerson might have reason also, people in his office might have reason also to want to sort of stick it to the president at this point. you would think, you know, obviously their focus -- john kelly is focused on the leak, sort of looking past the president and his sort of lack of focus and the lack of knowledge and the lack of adherence to the strategy. >> how do we know he's not the leaker? >> we don't know that for sure. this sort of, you know, we're going to get the leaker sort of always the reaction in this white house when there are problems with cabinet secretaries, they don't say you're wasting taxpayer dollars, they say this is a problem with the optics. they have a tendency to sort of ignore the actual problem and fa focus on another issue like the leaking to try to tighten up the ship. but it's not about a tight ship. it's about a president who can't really follow directions and orders and can't align himself with what other people in the administration who have knowledge about national security and russia are advising him to do on this issue. that is the bigger story. and focusing on the leak while, yes, that could be a concern to john kelly and while yes he himself could be the one who put this out there somehow, he has had a lot of background conversations and off the record conversations with reporters of late. the main issue here is what the president's saying to vladimir putin and russia. >> listen -- >> stephanie, could i just jump in with one thing on this? look, the president has -- for some reason the president has struggled to confront or criticize putin. it's just patently obvious in my view there's a reason he's afraid to do that. the president is going to try to ramp up our fears, okay, on this issue. you saw in his tweet, he talks about this coming arms race between us and russia. what is he talking about? i mean, this is an imaginary thing. he's going try to create the scenario by which only he can save us from this coming arms race which we've never heard anything about until now. it reminds me during the campaign when a russian par la men tarrian, an ally of putin, said if hillary clinton was elected, it would be world war iii. on the campaign trail, that's what we heard about. well, if president trump -- if it's not president trump, if it's hillary clinton, then we're going to have world war iii, so how do we handle that? that became a fear of voters out there. and it was promoted by the sort of russian propaganda and by others associated with president -- now president trump. but the point is just that he is going to try to validate his relationship with vladimir putin through fear. he did that and his allies did that through the campaign and they will do it again now. for some reason, the president is not going to change his posture on putin. we'll find out in time why. but he is going to try to justify it using fear. >> well, president trump, this is the home of the free and the land of the brave. we will not be afraid. we will stand up and represent our country. guys, thank you so, so much. i don't know why he doesn't say anything bad about putin. all right, time now to give your morning primer. everything you need to know to get your day started. we begin with new details on the suspected serial bomber in austin. nbc news affiliate obtained this photo of the 24-year-old suspect in an electronics store buying parts that are consistent with pieces used in package bombs. police say the bomber left behind a recorded confession detailing construction of the bombs and the challenges in his life. the federal reserve raising interest rates. chairman powell approved the quarter point raise yesterday. three additional hikes are expected later this year. and epa administrator scott pruitt back in the hot seat, when was he off of it, about travel. and new york city building regulators are investigating more than a dozen properties belonging to the kushner companies after reports that the real estate company filed false paperwork. thank you to those journalists. and a longtime tv personality known for playing bozo the clown has passed away. frank avaruch portrayed the famous clown from 1959 to 1970. now it is time for my favorite part of the show, you know what it is, money, power, politics. about three hours from now, the president expected to announce new tariffs on china. and the markets, they're not reacting well. right now they are down. let's see how much. well, why don't we just bring in dom chu down at the new york stock exchange. peter alexander at the white house. and ben white back with me. dom, what is it that the markets don't like? because it is true, china does feel our intellectual property. they are engaging in an economic war against us. is the issue that the tariffs the president wants to put in place aren't going to do anything about that? >> this is all about whether or not president trump has any kind of real handle on whether or not we see these trade sanctions take effect with any kind of force or without any kind of force. the reason why i say that is because we saw this with steele and aluminum. people thought there was going to be a much bigger bite to those particular tariffs until the president put in some exemptions in place for canada and mexico maybe and maybe some one on one exemptions here and there. the weakness today is about whether or not we see the stock market's weakness, rather, about specific details and who's going to be impacted. there's also going to be this uncertainty about how those retaliatory efforts from china, if they hypothetically come, will effect certain parts of the market and which ones they do effect. we've been reporting extensively on this idea that many of the companies that are the most impacted in the market right now are perhaps industrial ones that sell a lot of goods to china or maybe the agricultural side of the equation where a lot of farmers sell corn and soybeans to places like china. if those are in focus, what the economic impact will be is something the market's trying to handicap, stephanie, right now. >> it's those farm counties that don't want president trump to touch nafta. peter, the original proposal was for about $30 billion in tariffs. trump wanted $60 billion. what do we know about the final product? and who has factored in to dom's point where this is going to hit. if it hits red, manufacturing, agricultural states, that is, in fact, trump country. >> yes, that's the risk of a potential for a trade war. the final figure expected to be announced obviously about three hours from now. we are hearing it will be less than $60 billion. it's not official yet in those tariffs and other penalties on china for stealing america's intellectually property. the tariffs are expected to target a wide range of categories. clothes, shoes, consumer electronics. the president's top adviser on trade said the policy goal here is really to find that sweet spot, if one exists where the tariffs inflict the maximum harm on china while trying to limit the effect on u.s. consumers. that's the real challenge here if this is to be successful. this is clearly the most aggressive action the president's taken to deliver on that fierce anti-china message from the campaign. you remember, he referred to china as an economic enemy among other comments he had. >> sure, loads of people could agree with that sentiment, but fewer and fewer are agreeing with his prescription to address it. ben, you know, back in january, reutersed that great quote, u.s. businesses say they use hundreds of billions of dollars, stolen ideas and software, or forced them to turn over the price of property for china. what are they doing to combat it? >> it's going to do very little to hurt china. they can export stuff to many other places. >> gary cohen said, i've got to go. >> it's going to hurt us because we'll pay higher prices for this stuff dom is talking about. we pay more for that. and our soybean farmers who sell into china will seles. what will china feel from these tariffs? almost nothing. but they'll impose their own in return. what we could have been doing is joining the transpacific partnership, a series of allies in the pacific region to trade by our rules. >> my brother, that has -- that train has left without us. >> it's left without us but the whole idea, larry kudlow talked about this let's create a coalition of the willing to pressure china. china is diversified much more than it was before. it will take japan, south korea, a number of the other countries -- >> how do you create a coalition of the willing when we have an administration that's about america first and i and i alone? >> yes. >> it was gary cohn who used to qualify the president and say america first doesn't mean america alone. how can larry kudlow make that argument now that he's inside the white house? >> it's what he thinks and what he believes and what people who are smart on trade believe, if there's a way to impact china's behavior, which they do bad things, this way unilateral tariffs of the united states, it will hurt them. i'm not saying this administration is capable of putting together a coalition of the willing, i think what they'll wind up doing is getting into a tit-for-tat trade war that will ratchet up on our consumers and will not do anything to hurt china. they're doing something very, very stupid in a very, very stupid way that is not going to help the united states, and they just needed a completely different way of viewing trade. this idea that it's all about the trade imbalance on china is ridiculous concept. it's not what it's about. before we go, dom, what does wall street care about? wall street isn't necessarily created in job creation here but they do care if prices go up and people can't afford to buy all that stuff. >> ultimately, stephanie, it comes down to corporate profitability because that's what drives the stock market. we've got a president and administration that likes to tie its success to the success of the stock market overall. what we have is a situation where many economists and strategists, the experts on wall street are trying to figure out a market that was arguably driven a lot to the upside. better profitability, if you take that profitability away, by taking away their business with other trading partners, does that negate everything you've done to your tax cut and jobs act? that's the way the market is pricing it in. this becomes like that real-time mechanism of overall what's going to happen with the administration and its policies. >> gentlemen, great, great conversation. you know i love that segment. next, let's make a deal. lawmakers unveil a massive trillion dollar spending bill hours before the threat of another government shutdown. so what's in it and what's not and will this thing pass? but first, you know what it is, it is women's history month. march. and i want to highlight our #onegreatwoman. today, it's gwen i'eifel. left her a note that included a racial slur, telling her to quote go home. you know what gwen did, she didn't go home, she went on to have an incredible award winning career which included posting multiple vice presidential debates. she died in 2017 at the age of 61, far, far, too young, after battling cancer. she certainly led an extraordinary life. when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. welcome back. lawmakers on capitol hill are scrambling to avert a government shutdown with the omnibus bill. i love that word. the house is set to vote today just before the friday deadline to keep the government open. here's the question. can lawmakers pass their trillion dollar spending bill? nbc's garrett haake joins me live from capitol hill. >> we have to stop meeting like this, hours before the deadline. congress scrambling to pass something to keep the government open. this bill, the omnibus, is sort of the christmas tree. there's something in this bill for everyone. $1.3 trillion in total spending. republicans like that it gives a huge boost to military funding in particular. it also has $1.6 billion for physical barriers, technology, for the southern border wall. i'm going to come back to that in a second. it's got a couple of other big things in it. it fixes the national instant criminal background check system. it adds about $10 billion for infrastructure projects, including 500 million for that railway tunnel between new york and new jersey. that's been a hot button issue here. $2 billion for school safety. $3 billion to fight the opoid epidemic. tons of money in this. one thing drawing a lot of attention this morn, the $1.6 billion for the border wall. that's not much money. remember, the president wanted that money up front. they couldn't get that money up front particularly without a daca deal tied to it. with this money being spent, they're not getting a big budget like a $25 billion number for the border wall. >> all right, well, then go through the reaction from lawmakers. we could say there's something in it for everyone. yet i already heard from jim jordan who said there ain't nothing in it for him. >> right. so conservatives in the freedom caucus, in fact, the freedom caucus came out almost as soon as this bill was published online. they don't like the big top line number, the $1.3 trillion number. they like the military spending, but that's sort of about it. they're upset that the border wall number isn't big, given how much is being spent here overall. democrats are very happy with this deal by and large. they would have liked to have seen a daca deal folded in here somewhere. but otherwise, they got a lot of their priorities in this. in part because the margin in the senate is so narrow. without the freedom caucus, house republican leaders had to negotiate with them. this should pass relatively easily. it is a deal that both sides agree to. there's always that possibility, particularly in the senate, that one senator could slow this down and we could trip into another government shutdown friday night, stephanie. >> another government shutdown. the night before the freedom march in washington. i certainly hope not. we certainly don't need that kind of chaos. garrett, thank you so much. coming up, again, not even 10:00 a.m., and here's what we're about to hit. the adult film actress, the former playboy playmate and the former apprentice contestant. and people say that liberals are the hollywood set. what do you call this grab bag of excitement. why one poses the biggest problem for president trump and his presidency? if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis and you're talking to your rheumatologist about a medication, this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further irreversible damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira works for many adults. it targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com. this is humira at work. president trump's legal battle is actually escalating. with stephanie clifford, better known as stormy daniel, will air. she is not the only one currently suing the president. he is facing mounting legal pressure from these three women, all of them filing lawsuits involving mr. trump in some way. he denies all of their allegations in a new nbc.com article asks the question, which one of these women who poses the greatest danger to mr. trump and his presidency. joining me now to discuss, msnbc legal analyst daniely sevellos who wrote that piece and elise jordan is back. >> stormy daniels and mcdougal's cases both involve contracts and they both involve arbitration agreements. the trump team is going to push their hardest to get cases out of court and back into arbitration because arbitration favors trump, it favors cohen, it favors ec consultants. the one individual who does not have a contract dispute is summer zervos. it's a civil wrong, it has nothing to do with a contract and accordingly there is no arbitration provision that she's subject to, and with the court's opinion this week, allowing it to go forward, that means the next phase here in new york is going to be discovery, and that means disclosing documents and it means depositions, ebts as they're called here and trump will surely be called to sit for a sworn deposition, that's under oath. that means every answer to every question is a potential perjury pitfall. >> take me inside trump's base, specifically the family values, white evangelical portion of his base, who were aware of the "access hollywood" tape, they saw all of that and saw past it in large part because issues that matter to them would be affected by the courts and getting a supreme court justice in neil gorsuch is a massive win, the almost record number of federal judges that are being appoint appointed. for that business, up until now they could say listen, trumps will come and go. i might not know that guy in eight years but these judges who represent my values are going to be there to stay. will they be able to stay on that narrative if this thing continues to take darker and darker turns, in a lie detector test when there's a question, did you have unprotected sex, that's taken us somewhere nasty. >> last week i was in mississippi and tennessee, and we conducted focus groups and spoke to strong trump supporters who identify in many cases as evangelical about their support for the president in light of these allegations, in light of the allegation that donald trump was with stormy daniels only a few months after melania trump had given birth to their son. >> they're cool with that? >> they say that they knew they weren't electing a saint, that 35% that is sticking with trump, they say we knew we weren't electing a saint. we don't care about his personality, his personal conduct. we care about the policies that he's putting into action, and those reflect our values. neil gorsuch reflects their values, so for now, they're sticking with him. although the women, women who are strong trump supporters are growing increasingly uncomfortable as these allegations mount and are moving beyond just the "access hollywood" tape that was dismissed as locker room talk. >> if trump's base is going to support him as he once said, he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it. if his base is bullet proof, is the law the bigger issue? i want to share a little bit more of what stephanie clifford, stormy daniels attorney said we should expect to hear from her with that "60 minutes" interview. the interview is something like eight hours. they're obviously not showing all of that. in the eight hours there's got to be a lot. listen. >> there are two aspects to this. there's the act, meaning the relationship with mr. trump, and there's the coverup, and i think she's going to touch on both of those during the interview. >> she's going to touch on those. does she risk getting herself in serious trouble here? we know michael cohen is pulling the trump move, i'm going to sue you and take you down 20 million bucks. she put herself in a bad spot? >> possibly. essentially what her team is doing is daring trump to go after her, because this is a case of probably a willful breach, and what they're doing, this is a gambit. daniels' team is essentially saying, it's a calculated risk. they're saying that we're going to breach this nondisclosure agreement because we don't think there's a nondisclosure agreement and number two, come after us. do your worst. if you want to take us to arbitration, and get a judgment for $20 million against my client, good luck to you, and you know what? you're going to have to continue to litigate this case, and that trump litigating this case would be cataclysmic for him. it's a dare, a calculated dare. >> if they get a trump friendly court is the bigger risk to trump discovery that even if the judge rules in his favor, he has to let it all hang out? >> the biggest risk is being in court at all. the trump team wants to be in arbitration, where it's private, nothing sees the light of day. they go to court, it doesn't matter if you have a trump friendly judge. the rules of discovery do not go republican or democrat. they are broad, and when he sits for a deposition, anything that's reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that question must be answered. >> private arbitration, private parts, let's get better. this is the united states of america, and this is our white house. coming up, thanks so much, guys. facebook's mark zuckerberg breaks his silence, apologizing for the exposure of millions of facebook users information. that is straight ahead. plus -- >> hey there, stephanie. i'm mariana atencio in kentucky with student making their way to the rallieses apeople akrcross e country demand lawmakers take action on gun control. what's the secret to turning a no into a yes? do you know how to network like a champ, and when is a good time to have some fun in the office? i'm j.j. ramburg. i've got some great answers to all of these questions, which might help you run a better business. check out the your business page on nbcnews.com for an exclusive online video series to help you work smart, grow fast and go further. go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance. but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know™. to keep our community safe. before you do any project big or small, pg&e will come out and mark your gas and electric lines so you don't hit them when you dig. call 811 before you dig, and make sure that you and your neighbors are safe. no matter what, there is always good news somewhere, and we think good news rules. today is a good one. we'll go to chicago where 15-year-old austin eggleston had been waiting for years for a heart transplant. he had a special request if a heart ever became available he wanted chewbacca himself to deliver the news. >> what the -- wait, wait. wait. wait. wait, got a heart? do we seriously have a heart? holy balls! >> oh my god, austin's pediatric cardiologist is the one who got dressed up and delivered the good news and i got better news. the transplant was performed successfully, and austin could be home in a month. as for the future, austin says he wants to grow up and be a pediatric cardiologist himself. austin, from everyone here on my show, may the force be with you. that, my friends, is some good news. that wraps up this hour. i'm stephanie ruehle. come up with my own princess leia, hallie jackson >> dr. austin has a nice ring to it. i know we'll be seeing you in a couple minutes on this show to talk tariffs because with washington digging out from that spring snowstorm, lawmakers are digging in to try to avoid another government shutdown. here is the deal. the house starts to vote this hour, and just about 15 minutes, on a big budget. it has more money for defense, more money for border security but republicans still are not totally sold, and even the president seemed to get cold feet this week. paul ryan is making a public push now to get this thing over the finish line but can

Transcripts For FBC Cavuto 20130508

president of the united states setting out to texas. let's not forget what created this jobs boom in texas. now, the details are a ltle different than the presidency because there not the president's policies, more like the governor's polies, not regulation having washington, anything but austin. that is why the president's taking his job toward taxes. critics in his own party fear the bat optics of such a move, but i commend it, maybe for all the wrong reasons. president is doing the right thing in going to the right place. he may not get credit, but if he will take credit that it is happening. fact that he is there and all says clearly wants what is going on in taxes to ruboff in other states fall states. bad of picks, maybe to some politically, but if any of the state programs and policies rub off on the president, good for the nation economically, good for the stock market perpetually but there is more to this than what meets the eye because forget don't mess with texas. why they want to see taxes mess with the president. in know, what really is behind this? >> my gosh. this is so obvious. this is obama and his administration wanting and even thinking that texas could go blue. texas is red, and texas is a shining example of what good government and the policies, the kind that the governor rick perry set up, which, by the way, i think this goes deeper because rick perry, and has been a ver big rawilk that he may make an announcement to where he may seek reelection -- of presidential. neil: the last around not go too well. >> but is given a little bit of practice. good government that they have. this is an example of what it would be like to have good gop government. neil: you could make an argument at the president benefit appreciably from states run by republican governors, democrats. i would say, that's not fair, but the fact of the matter is, the state that he won, ohio, wisconsin, florida, they were all benefiting from republican- led turnarounds'. this is what repubcan governors will tell you. if you can latch onto whatever succes seven in texas, his policies and the president's policies, so be it. >> exactly. i think that is right on. think about it is like. aale of two states. affeed by both national policy in state policy. the president is going to texas with a state policy that contrasts with his national policy. bu it has an unemployment rate that is below the national average. why doe't he get to california a state that has a national -- a state policy that is very similar to the presidents. i regulation, tax and an un panera of 9%, series using a state that contrasts with them policy was to get to, and not a state in california which is not doing nearly asell, which is more in line with the policies he is pursuing and national level. neil: you know, since every president is the blame for a bad stockarket, naturally they would take about four get along, even though presidents have littleirect impact on that save those who have john dropping fiscal policies that lead to this. you can make be argued from reagan, clinton began of but this one. having said that, no harm no foul in ting -- trying to do the same for the texas jobs. >> i don't think so. >> it will work, but obviously most peopldon't understand it. one sixth of all the jobs were created were created right there in the city taxes. the reason why was because of smart regulations, lowering them back, 01 gun tax, zero corporate tax and at the end of the day folks mtv really should go on a bill which located itsffice in texas and look at rick perry's economic development plan. no secret elixir, but wide open for business. just me, the presentees understand the reason why texas is booming is because of the entasis of his policies. >> remembered welfare and all that. perpetuated by republicans. yet the credit for it. >> in my opinion clinton reaped the benefits of ergonomics. anyone could have sat in that seat and watch the economy's about. >> federal programs. neil: he took credit for the unemployment rate coming down in florida, the election. wisconsin. all states. >> they don't buy that. neil: de think this is an attempt to make it public? >> detectives goes blew the gop is pretty much done. the staple of the republican party. when i raise national funds one of the first stop sign do is i go to texas. they have some of the largest donors, red white and blue and republican base. so they know how an economy works. let's face it, republicans have great principles. they have great economic define the policy makes sense. it is the moral deal that is getting the democrats versus the republicans, and the democrats did not have anything economically that is sound makes good sense it. they have to go on these other garnishees to try to -- neil: they're going to. i guess what i am asking you, on this stuff 15,000 plus. it has essentially doubled under this president's stewardship. a lot of reasons for this. but isn't that something he is going to say, companies are making money, companies are doing better, earning more, investors. but ironically that is creating more of this wealth gap that he originally campaigned against and said he would fix. he is in a bit of a pickle and ask and is seen at? >> he is a little bit. have to look at what he will go down in campaign in texas for. on one hand he will go there and campaign for a lot of the things he mentioned in this t the union, which he has so far basically ignored, including raising the minimum wage above 9%. that kind of addresses that wealth gap, but on the other hand, that is not going to help the national economy. they think will hurt the national economy, especially youth unemployment which is already very high to begin with. neil: we shall see. in the meantime, he is the guy going to texas. that was not by accidents. the might be texans out there who resented and find that, you know, he is the wrong person showing a been a wrong place to argue about the wrong bragging rights, but nevertheless he is going there. what is the fallout from all of that >> well, you know, it tells you that the president really does not have a plan to create jobs. he needs to understand that the best way to create jobs is by fostering an environment that is going to promote job and economic growth and that is one rick perry's doing. the reason why he wants to go down there and talk it is not just because it is booming, but it is a minority majority stake. as a native texan i welcome in down there, please do not take credit for something you didn't do. >> my word in a national for obama going to texas' thinking that he can fool everybody is good luck with that. neil: okay. guys, thank you very much. you know, i never know where noel stance. anyway, remember when chris christie singled out john for dragging his heels on and sandra relief bill. >> only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims, the house majority and their speaker, john maynard. neil: he was wrong in the speaker was right. over the top and is now just coming to light alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. d with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity za ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet? [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do. ♪ neil: all right. here we go again, another closing high, another milestone, although this one did take a while. the dow has never been better than it is right now. why are people feeling better? in 20 minutes, why stocks are jumping, but lots of folks are not exactly jumping for joy. in the meantime, i always thought that 16 billion send a little high for hurricanes and the damage. governors like new jersey's chris christie were in such a rush to get it out that they never stop to consider why some republicans on capitol hill wer so focused on what their colleagues were sticking in and not just those colleagues in washington. news -- new york governor andrew cuomo is using $140 million in n the aid for commercials, luring businesses to come to new york. no wonder victims are fling victimized all over again. cacan you blame them? scott, you saw that and about what? >> it is amazing. it is outrageous, first of all, because there are thousands of people still without their homes. you have taking money it could be used for the people, and rebuild their homes and putting it adds up for businesses to come back. when the world trade center is finally build and to the show from nbc comes, the tonight show, you will start having business comeback. leave the damn money alone. i was told that it is going to take me $10,000 a put to raise my house. i could do 10 feet. that is 100,000. at $145 million could do 1,475 homes could be lifted and put proper. 1,000 board 75 homes. this guy wants to put advertisements out there to bring business in? you need the people here first before you can bring businesses. wake up. we need to be here first. you know what, businesses and not going to do any good of the people a year. neil: the people have wondered. what dyou think? was thinking with this money, there was plenty of oth untold millions that was spent on repaving and retelling a wreath at the smithsonian museum in washington. nowhere near the hurricane passed. on and on and on it wind and continues to go. >> right away. is he kidding jackson many good things to spend the money on. my business is on the shoreline. three different businesses. so many different businesses that are struggling every they cannot get by. they cannot open. this happened six months ago. come on. he think you're going to make loans easy to get? you can get a loan. nearly impossible. you can't get fding. you can't open your place. what about the businesses tt are there? what about these people? what about me. thank god i am a saver. i say for rainy day. i am places back open. i cannot see this bringing new people in business in, create new jobs. what about the people that cannot go to work? it is terrible. neil: i was also thinking in your case when you're telling about the bureaucracy, the hoops have to get to the get the money that has been channeled to folks like use on stored destroyed and it is almost to the point where you just cannot get it. it is there in front of you, but you just cannot get it. >> it is too much red tape. they keep tellingng you. neil: give me an example. >> all right. like you said, tried to get a loan. trying to get money from fema. i get my insurance money for my insurance company, but i have to give it to bank of america to hold until i finish my house of 100 percent. is that crazy? where my getting my money? neil: bank of america will give it to you until that is done. >> until my house is 100 percent. neil: they are benefiting from this. >> they want to hold it and make interest on my money that i paid the premiums. it in a fork. i lost contests. i'm not covered 1 penny for it. but only the other day the fp -- fd people call me and said there finally going to a purview. six months later. you're up here, but we need the proof of what you lost. cookies receipts for their stuff effect of destroyed to back you know, where am i getting all the stuff? yoknow what, making it hard. they don't want the victim's back home. starting to really believe they don't want us back home in our hos. i think they want to take these for her purposes. i think the government, andrew cuomo himself, they have tt damn election this year. they want to legalize casinos waterfront property. let's get homeowners out d build casinos. neil: i hope you're wrong, but that has come up. the governor's people say that is not the case, but your point is well taken. one thing i want to ask you on this. you hear this $60 billion that was, you know, sent to effected states like new jersey and certainly like york. did any of that gate to you? did any of that get to your -- the people who are directly -- >> the bad thing is, they tell you they're going to give you these loans. >> nothing. >> if you had andrew cuomo in front of you right now. >> you have to do it for your people. >> you are paid by the members and the people of new york state , the storeowner, hoowner, middle-class, poor, rich, not for your own personal gain. you need to put that money back, say goodbye and get out of office. only to run for president because i could tell you, you don't put it back in the keep messing with the american people , i will be on the news telling them what you did as a victim of sandy. neil: all right. very happy. think you both very much. hang in there. all right. now we know this guy is running. his waist is shrinking. ♪ neil: new jersey governor chris christie said he it it gar the kids, but not a white house run in four years. the governor had weight loss surgery sunday to get fit for a presidential run, but first things first, get reelected governor of new jersey this fall, and he certainly got the cash too that, more than $6 million rasedded thus far as is likely democratic opponent is having trouble getting the maximum matching federal funds which she dsperately needs now. no wonder christie's not so fat, but very happy now. lloyd weber, and peter, hadley what's going on here? >> listen, every time i hear this story, first reaction, gut reaction is to lamen that we don't focus on the issues. how has he governed? legisla? you know, what office is he running for? that's what voters should be weighing rather than looking at the waistband, but, of course, image has a lot to do with politics and be real realistic t that. the by product of the surgery, ultimately for health, is good for politics as well. neil: what do you think? >> i'm here to say the word "obesity," to you, neil. neil: i love when you say "obesity" because you make it seem almost like an endearing physical state. >> well, chris christie is endearing, hats off to tackling obesity. if he had not, had not done this, his medical records would have bee like romney's tax returns in the last presidential election. it would have been a problem. added to which a 350-pound man on the campaign trail, the presintial campaign trail is rigorous, tough. neil: taft got through; right? >> modern era though. neil: right about that. what do you think? >> it's not entirely necessary to bring politics into it, at least not yet. you know, christie probably wants tobe president so he seems to sort of act like it. he probably -- he seems ike he wants to lose weight, but i'm not sure he wants to lose weight in order to be president. >> no, no, you know knowing enough about the families and kids, any father, mother, anyone would want to be around for the kids. i take that at face value. one of the things i say, though, it is better to be in inviting shape than not running for president. image is one, dead on, and not just because you say obesity so well. >> obesity. neil: thank you. it is a rigorous process now. we've gone through on the primary to now constantly running virtually to years at a minimum nonstop for the job, all physically gruelg, and you have to be up to snuff for it; right? >> right. you know, a better predicter of a candidate's success is not the size of the waist, but the size of the funding, which he has a lot of backing, been popular, and americans, themselves, struggled with weight, with weight loss, and so in some ways, this story just makes him more relatable as a politician. i hope people recognize that, you know, beyond the vanity of politics, it may represent someone taking responsibility in their own health care not blaming soda or big sugar, salt, or mcdonald's, but recognizing his ultimately his responsibility. neil: he always said that, battled it for 20 years, i've lost it many times, not blaming it on anyone, but, i guess what i'm asking is do you think he's less appealing to a lot of folks -- like winston churchill like a thin waist; right? he carried, i thought more as a big guy, and to hear the stories when he visited fdr at the white house, rolling around the family mansion in the nude. i don't want to picture what that was like. >> where are we? neil: no,no, you heard the stories; right? do people feel the same about him? >> i think fundamentally, the struggle w's weight makes him relatable and responsible. obesity is a public health care catastrophe. neil: still popular as a thin and fit christie? >> absolutely. neil: really, peter, you buy that? >> it's not clear whether he's going to be a thin fit christie or a less heavy christie. neil: i don't know. it would be like if santa claus had a richard simmons workout. >> still a lot of heft, a lot of -- you know, a lot of power behind the words. neil: doesn't matter. >> i think he still will, yes. neil: you agree with that? >> yeah i take him at his word saying he's doing it for the benefit of the health and family and longevity. i think that sets a good example for a lot of americans who strugled witweight for a long time,and healthy americans struggle with weights weight. look, regardless of the political cons imenses, good for him, bad for him, whether he's going to be a medium sized or small christie, ultimately, take him at the word saying it's for the health. neil: you agree? >> i do, absolutely. fundamentally, the biggest problem is not going to be obesity or hiary clinton in 2016, but the republican party, and, actually, winning that nomination because for some reason, they demand ideological purity, and face it, kris he shd be embraced, but he's not invited to cpac. kneel they'll tha's right. obesity had nothing to do with it. >> exactly, nothing. neil: thank you, all, very much. barak obama's watergate? why huckabee says it's just as bad d with the same end resulti. ♪ [ man ] on december 171903, the wright brothers became the first in flight. [ goodall ] i think the most amazing thing is how like us these chimpanzees are. [ laughing ] [ woman ] can you hear me? and you hear your voice? oh, it's exciting! [ man ] touchdown confirmed. we're safe on mars. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ hi. [ baby fussing ] ♪ given way to sleeping. tossing and turning have [ baby fussing ] where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep, and lunesta eszopiclone can help you get there, like it has for so many people before. do not take lunesta if you are allergic to anything in it. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machiner. walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported. lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then find out how to get lunesta for as low as $15 at lunesta.com there's a land of restful sleep, we can help you go there, on the wings of lunesta. but maybe the problem isn'isn't your lawn. introducing the all-wheel-drive mower from husqvarna. we engineered its unique drive system and dual transmission to handle hills& thick grass& and tough terrain& without losing traction or power the all-wheel-drive mower from husqvarna. challenge the impossible. visit us online to enter the challengthe impossible promotion ♪ neil: deja vu all over again, nixon, watergate did him in, and two years later, forced h out. mike huckabee saysanother scanl befuddling another president says it could be the same way, benghazi will do this this president what water gate did to that president, forcing him to be a former president before the term is up. governor, you think that's likely? >> neil, i think it is very possible, and if he's not forced to be resigned or impeached and tried by the senate, there's a possibility he'll be damaged by the revelations of benghazi, that he will be not just a lame duck, but a dead duck when it comes to being able to govern. this is a far more serious situation, i think, thawhat the press would like to believe it is, but when you ave people all the way to the top who knew there were cries for help coming out of the embassy and ambassador pleading to be assistance, and nobody moved, the revelations that start tomorrow, i think, are going to be very, very damaging up and down the administration. neil: you know, governor, i would say that you're right in the respect that there's a lot here that the media should pounce on, but a zeal, a relevance to go after nixon, i don't know, at least at this appointment, if there's the same enthusiasm to go after this president. >> well, no, they don't have the same enthusiasm to go after him, and, true, the media wanted to bring mixon down, that's unquestionable, but there's going to be issues here that are different than water gate, and water gate, it was essentially a third rate bungled burglarly, at wasarrative, in the election year, but turned out, the real crime was not the burglarly itself. it ws the lies and coverup, and in this case, we have lies and coverups, but we have soething else. we have four dead americans including a u.s. ambassador, and if the testimony shows that they were giving plenty of warning, that there was reason to believe that al-qaeda was present, if they begged for their lives the night of the murders, and this was treated as something that was not politically lpful, then i just don't see even the press who love him, how can they ignore this? you know, we never found out exactly what was the president doing that night? it was not that he, you know, was overly engrossed in it because the next day, he went to the west coast for a fundraising tour. i do think that all of the talk, for example, last week, when the president acted like he had no idea that there were people who were willing to talk and had been told not to, jay carney repeated that. on the face, it's pore postrows, and e'll learn more tomorrow. neil: there's a lot we don't know. i heard democrats, governor, said the trip to vegas confirms that he didn't know because he certainly wouldn't have gone to vegas. if he did, who knows. there's another issue proving a president lied or distorted something, and that's when it gets a little tricky. you have richard nixon caught on tape, theinfamous tapes that did him in. it might not be so easy here. what do you think of that? >> well, i don't think he was foolish enough to install a taping system that records his every utter rains, but there is clearly some phone records at the white house, the question is how much of the material is going to be able to come forth and we don't know, but for the president to say for 17 days that this was the result of a spoon tape yows mob that just popped up and just happened to have an their shoulderssome rocket power propel grenades, that, in itself, is laughable on its face, and for them to continue to trot out the u.n. ambassador saying it was a reaction to a video, now we know, fro inside some of the documents, that, frankly, fox news staff did a geat job in reporting. neil: well, now, only -- >> from the very beginning. neil: other news organizations -- but a lot depends on the first whistle-blower to be credible; right? cotom cross as someone who is evidence and words will be damming; right? >> well, it is, and these are people who are career civil service people, not political appointees, but the mechanics, the people don't care who if it's a ford or chevrolet, they work on it, not sell it. that's what the folks do. i think they are going to show their outrage and their absolute disdain hat knob asked them to come forward early on. >> interesting, governor, we'll watch closely, thank you. >> thank you, neil. neil: mike huckabee. may the 4th never leave us because if you hear what disney electronics arts are planning, you'd think "star wars" just started coming out now. ♪ ♪ if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trl versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important, especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor. [ female announr ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. neil: r2d, what you going to do? make money hand over, that's whatt you do. never mind the "star wars" franchise cades old and about to get a revamping back to the future now leading off the blitz tonight. dennis, first off, what do you think of this? better than expected earnings, and also this electronics art, the star wars, what do you think of it? >> >> the mouse that warred, managed 33 # #% growth on a million dollar basis, almost unheard of, especially among media companies, very impressed, but this deal with electronic arts strikes me because it's something they don't think michael, the predecessor, ever would have done. disney long had a not invent here syndrome. the studio set up because walt felt no one else would do business with him in the 30s and 40 #s, then they buy lucas films, kill the video game, part of lucas film, fire a couple hundred people, and hands the business over to the best video game company in the world showing vision, even though it took a blow to the ego. neil: the game thing, more car war related rides at theme parks, ect., but, again, it's a very old fran franchise, but i guess it's going to work? >> i don't know, respectfully, i have a different opinion. i think the market's getting ahead of themselves, and the gamers few and far between, asking customers who to do next, to me, a sign of weakness, and i think disney is taking on something they may not be able to digest. >> it's a sign of wekness, keith, when you ask customers what they want? that's a sign of weakness? interesting. >> this that business, i think it is because usually the big successful games e built upon a very carefully predicated set of expectations, the vision, they don't have that vision and launching on the name, and star ars, when the customer base chaed and moved beyond core gaming years -- >> but star wars games, as a video game, they never were supersuccessful; right? >> exactly. >> if they were unable to do it, why not team up with electronic arts? neil: better at games, but if lucas couldn't do, tten -- >> that's the point. i think tey will accident happen them -- sapp them up. >> we'll see. mew vie lovers staying in, theaters could be out of luck. profit dropping 23% as fewer people go to the movies. this was all pretty, you know, iron man 3, but missing the mark,netflix is thriving saying the couch potato is back? >> i think the couch poe potatos back in form and theaters dead money. i can't make the case to invest in one. neil: dine-in theaters, like that? >> there's exctions for the experience and am bee yans, but that a great invement in that's a different choice, maybe private equity, but massive scales like that, it's not working. >> what do youhink? >> the main problem is not the theater business, but hollywood was not making good films bringing people into theaters. box office down 12 #% this year. now a along comes iron man 3, $7 murks million already in two weeks, $175 million open in the u.s. second biggest ever, bringing people to the theaters, not to worry. >> technology is at work. to me, it's a bandwidth to zero issue, there's cost, netflix -- >> yet, nothing like an experience in the darness laughing with a bunch of people and -- neil: and shouting on their phones and -- >> this argument was when television came out. >> pick up in college and all that. >> do a better job of running the theaters. we said this when television came out, oh, it's going to kill the theater business. the vcr, it's going to kill the theater, u meanwhile, hit all-time highs. neil: contingent on the strength of the movies out there. that could be hit and miss. >> just do a better job, if you run a heater, make it attractive, serve dhol. >> that'd be great. >> i went to a film in london with dinner, move, a polite gentleman says, ladies and gentlemen, time to take your seats issue and it was a wonderful experience. neil: really? grow up in beverly hills? in my town, popcorn, butter over there, get it. >> by the way, $22. neil: exactly. microsoft has another window situation on its hands admitting to windows 8 mistakes with tixes on the way. too late? >> nothing like having a 95% share of the computers in the world to hel you matter whether it's too late? and microsoft, the thing that windows franchise, and that's what was going to tear it down. had to stay compatible, but had to update. sht over. i think it made way too much a shift. we went from clicking on poster stamps to using fingers to swipe stuff. neil: you can do both though, unbiased here, i do like windows 8, i do. >> really? neil: yeah because yo do both. >> we mate change so much. >> that's right. that prompted this. >> i can't get used to it. it's a legacy product, chuck it or get down to how people use stuff. neil: prefer the older version to this? >> i do. we have not consciously -- dlitly have not updated. i don't like the fact of the point and clilick and devices ae not compatible. neil: resis tent to change as well as the core base of the people? >> requires retraining, and then the inevitable bugs with every new software, just a pain. for the first time, corporate america said, you know what? i'm not knee jrk upgrading because you told me to, holding off >> that's a big one because now the corporate user base is just not on auto pilot. >> sometime republican we don't buy new computers very other movant; right? >> windows 1998 here. >> that's right. neil: reiable, good, solid. [laughter] do you think that something microsoft can overcome or something that could be, like, a new coke fiasco? >> tough question. i think they are going to haave, as long as balmer runs around, there's a challenge because he's not, i don't thik, a visionary. i think if you get a job like personality in there capable of dealing with it -- neil: even bill gates vissonary as much -- >> i think he was a visionary, absolutely. >> more technical, balmer, the salesman. you know, microsoft gets it only so-so on the first release, always get it right eventually, and that monopoly allows mone. >>all the contract base, you know, not only the monopolybut a lot of contracts. >> con tin yom. >> buy rim, actually, buy blackberry, heavy in corporate accounts, both fat, bloated, troubled companies, less so microsoft, but rim would be great. also -- neil: the x -- >> get a big utility, and that grows; right? >> interesting idea, absolutely. neil: he has ton of them. >>, no i like that. >> i like that. bring him on more. neil: i'm a little discouraged he found windows 8 intimidating, and i'm an idiot, and i got it. when we come back, the s&p, dow soaring to record highs today, but a new threat, a new threat that could bring them crashing down. it's not debt and taxes here. it's not debt and taxes here. it could be, could be hackers copd makes it hard to breathe... but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announce ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not bused more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may incrse your risk of osteoporosis some eye prlems tell your doctor if you have a het condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if incling advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. neil: china's scoffing, and the pentagon says the chinese are behind cyber attacks hitting big american companies and big military government installations themselves. china says it has nothing to do with it, but a former bush 43 homeland security secretary and founder of the group not so sure mentioning during the break, secretar one of the things going on is that we're better at reveing what we're discovering fg -- discovering; right? we discover the chinese are play at that particular timely, flagrantly, and constantly doing this. >> there was a report from a private group a few weeks ago that actuallyidentified a specific unit of the people's liberation army that was responsible for hacking and spewing ip. the latest report to commerce goes a step further talking bow the risk that the chinese are in our networks, perhaps doing reconnaissance for the possibility of carrying out some kind of malicious attack. if, let's say, getinto a hotted adversary situation. that's a recognition. >> what's that mean? things that escalate we come to blow? >> could interview with the infrastructure or distract us. neil: capable of that? >> well, i think this report takes some steps that are precursors to that. doesn't mean they do it, but looking to prepare a reconnaissance and prepare the battlefield. are we capable of fighting back? sure, the most sophisticated defense folks will be ble to deal with this. the problem is the weakest link. the critical infrastructure around the country, whether it's financial transportation, water, power, and if someone is not doing what they needto do to protect the network, it can be cascading in t effect across a large part of the population. i think that is the concern that underlies this latest report to congress. >> here's what worries me, secretary, and it's one thing for terrorist to ram plane into the pentagon, but far more sinister and ominous for a foreign country, a respected foreign country, not some sinister force here, to get into the computers at that punishment -- pentagon and military contractors, and do so what appears to be abandoned over the last, particular year. >> well, the chinese, of course, deny it's them, blaming it on unspecified hackers. neil: do you think it's them? >> this report identifies the government, the private report identifies the people's republic army. now, are they likely to attack us? very unlikely, and it would be really the culmination of the serious situation. do we have a responsibility to protect ourselves against a remote pssibility? yes. do we have to press the chinese, not only on this, but the theft of intellectual property, literally exporting jobs overseas because you take our research and development, you give it to a national champion in china, and then they are able to produce that investment. neil: absolutely, maybe it's bau we own so much money? >> because there's american companies doi business in china worried they will be hurt. at some point, there's a speedometer to the country to ensure wedon't keep people pilfering our ntellectual treasure chest. neil: sir, swtching gears, boston, latest things discovered there, russians warning us about these sort of rebels in our midst, and makes you wonder how much more we could have learned or are learning. what do you think? >> well, i think the key here is going to be what happened when the eler brother, tamerlan tsarnaev, went to russia? there for six months, there's a long histo of western muslims going to chechnya or the reason getting radicalized and getting trained and coming back to western europe and some of them becoming terrorists. kneel nemo how -- neil: how many of those here? >> probably a small number, somalia, trained, couple came back, and we ultimately prosecuted them. it's a very small number, but as you can see, with the, you know, the attack in boston, even a small number of people do a significant amount of damage. neil: you know what i noticed, secretary? the delay factor. i mentioned on both shows today, about a visa that was revoked, not getting to the end result at an airport where tamerlan tsarnaev gets back into the country, communication from fbi agents who supposedly had the guy, talked to the guy, never conveyed that, or if ey did, delayed to local boston authorities. this is an issue thati thought we solved with homeland security. >> what we've done, you know, we have a structure now and legal system to allow the exchange of information. it it's now a human issue. people need a sense of urgency. the risk that occurs when you are successful for yearsis you get bureaucratic routine. they begin to treat as checking the boxes opposed to feeling they have to act as if there's a mpelling urgency. i think this is an opportunity to look at what happened, obviously, you know, the department of homeland security, the fbi, remendously successful over the last ten years and give them a lot of credit, but every time there is a failure like this, there's an opportunity to go back, look and see what didn't work, and whether it's a question of dialing up the urgency or changing protocols. you got to learn the lessons. neil: quickly, an attack like experienced in boston more attacks now rather than playing it's the route? >> i think al-qaeda 2 # #.0 is beginning to be this kind of attack. we saw that in mumbai, europe, and the good news is that we'v chased them out of the catastrophic attacks, but the bad news is there's more targets. neil: man, oh, man, the stuff you've seen and have come compo. thank you, sir. >> thank you, nei. neil: the dow settling above 15,000 for the first time ever, but just guess who is leading the buying parade? not the names you'd think. not the names you'd think. the boring names you likely the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. aneveryone but her... no. no! no. ...likes 50% more cash. but i don't give up easy... do you want 50% more cash? yes! yes?! ♪ [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase, plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's t card for people who like more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? why? and we've hit the why phase... [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brus you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. ansrs. neil: a rally not exactly exy. the dow and s&p 500 spiking highs today, and, you know, the boring old stocks like the kraft, lowes, union pacific leadi the way like revenge of the nerds. ben willis also here. gary, what do you mean by that? >> well, basically, when i look at the new high list, i'm finding food, drugs, bev rammings, household products, rails, things like that. it's laidenwith johnson & johnson and bristol myers. that's happening in the market now, it's not the great, glamour grwth name the market is revaluing the companies based on the fed continuing to print money, and i have to tell you, we stopped, we don't know because the fed prints $3 billion to $4billion. >> that's the driving force, the central banks the driving force for the equity markets. neil: why the cheap beneficiaries dull names, nothing wrong with that. >> no, of course, you think old, unsexy, you called me. neil: hey, i'm the host. what do you think of that? >> first of all, the early participants in the quity market had the utilities, the consumers, and, actually, there's a rotation out of the utilities into the beta names right now, that had not realy participated, but you heard the last guy mtion the rail stocks, the rails, again, not sexy story, quite frankly, but you have a stock like ksu, kansas city southern, performing brilliantly, an oracle of omaha knew about the rails and bought himself the company because they participated in the very unsexy oil business in fracking. neil: a precursor of things to comebecause those stocks do well, gary, and others argue that's good for everybody. do you agree with that? >> neil, normally,nd i use the word "normally" loudly, normally, i say, yes, it is the market indicating that going forward, business is going to pick up, the movement of goods is going to pck up, and the economy's going to be strong, but it's not normal times now. central banks are absolutely insane with what they are doing. there is long term repercussions, but right now, the going is good. i think the economy remains an okay shape and that's all. what you remember about the companies and areas we talk about, they have not doe anything in 13 years. remember, we're just moving above 2,000, the year 2000 highs in the stocks, what happened is evaluations cme down while there's a little growth picking up, and now the market is in gear with them. i don't know they have a long way to go because the companies have zero growth rates, but others are better like the rails that have decent growth going forward. neil: top line rowth, this stuff, revenues, which were not going along with beating earnings expectations, and, in fact, that was tested and more disappointment than normally meets the eye with the attention to other details. how much of a worry is that for you and what type of a leash does it put the market on? >> worried aout the strengt the rally in the market is extraordary. we had a great return on quity in the last four months that we normally don't see for 12 months. that tells you the market is over extended, over bought. neil: sheer gravity. >> gravity. again, fighting the fed and central banks, japan, the japanese market ralying immensely -- neil: five-year high today. >> exactly, devalued the currency, race to the bottom, eventually, along race, but -- so the inestors going into equity markets will not retire any time on if they buy their u.s. treasuries in the safety. there's going to be a huge risk there, so the equity play has been the dividend paying stock. the mass limited partnerships, the real esta investment trust and utility. we've seen those buying powers in the stocks, but, again, recently, the new highs, less sexy names. apple, a great sexy name for a ong time and everybody wanted to talk about it at the paties, but those people that own apple are invited to parties,they don't have money to throw them. neil: thank you, guys, very much. we shall see if it continues, but for the meantime, don't bite the tape. following it all, also reaction to the markets, the benghazi testimony taking up something that fix sated the financial community as well. how big does it get and how much disrupt wha we've got? tomorrow. se lori: have a great night. melissa: all right. we are starting off tonight with some breaking news. fox business's rich edson just wrappedp a broad based special one-on-one interview with house speaker john boehner. let's go to rich in washington, d.c. rich, what stood out to you? >> we talked taxes. we discussed entitlements. of course that debt ceiling fight, the biggest one of the year. the house plans on passing a bill that would soon allow the treasury department to prioritize debt payments white house minutes before interview the president would veto saying it is up to congress to pass a clean increase in the debt ceiling. we asked the speaker about that white house veto threat. >> you know the president can say this but y know, he is the person who, when he was united stat

Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20120725

businesses or banks. it can be a result of government regulation. that is our discussion. that is our intention today, to get to the heart of that. what i would like to address, i would encourage you to look at access to credit and to mention this in terms of your rules- making. as i see it, there is an opportunity to over regulate and thereby constrain access to credit. >> i see. >> maybe not explicitly banning products, but not having the results of products offered. that is my concern i would like to express to you. i would appreciate it if you would take that into account. i think the american people would appreciate it as well. >> i understand your point now and i did not before. we do, that is one of the things we consider in the cost-benefit analysis. that is one of the -- there is only a handful of specific mandates we have. the objectives laid out by congress, one of them is to give careful consideration to access to credit. my understanding of how this makes sense is, it is great to protect consumers with all the elaborate protection you can think of. they have to have access to credit and credit needs to be presented in terms that are understandable and clear. i do think we are uniformly, as we consider rules, having a discussion of that and an analysis of that. i appreciate the kind that -- a comment. -- the comments. >> thank you. i appreciate the responsiveness you have presented in your time as director of the cfpb. as i have expressed, the means of your important -- appointment i have found suspect, but you're aspect serving in this position have been honorable, even if i disagree with the actions you take and at times. you have done so in an honorable fashion and we can disagree about policies, procedures, and even sometimes results. but i appreciate your willingness to be open about that. that is a welcome thing. thank you for your willingness to be here today. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now dismiss this panel. we will recess for about a moment or two before we began our second panel. -- began our second panel -- begin our second panel. >> wednesday, u.s. relations with the mexican president will be discussed. republican of new jersey talks about the fight over tax cuts and defense cut frustration. calls will be taken about an article highlighting entitlement gaps between the generations. washington journal is life on c- span. >> wednesday, kim died there is before the house service -- house financial-services committee. on c-coverage starting a span 3. >> even disagree vehemently on the law, without taking it personally and without hating the person who is on the other side. you ought to find another job. >> sunday at 8:00 on c- span's "q & a." >> ron paul has introduced a measure to have an audit of the federal reserve. the bill could jeopardize the federal reserve's independence. the bill was debated today for 50 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 459, the federal reserve transparency act, directs the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the federal reserve. the dodd-frank legislation mandated the g.a.o. audit of the fed, but that audit issued by the government accountability office in july of 2011, focused solely on the issues concerning emergency credit facility. g.a.o. remains restricted under current law from conducting a broader audit of the fed that includes, for instance, a review of the fed's monetary policy operations and its agreements with foreign governments and central banks. the bill remedies this statutory permitting g.a.o. -- permitting g.a.o. the investigative arm of congress to conduct a nonpartisan audit that will review all of these transactions. the findings of the audit are to be reported to congress. in particular, it is appropriate that we consider this legislation at this time. while congress should not manage or micromanage details of monetary policy, it needs to be able to conduct oversight of the fed. the fed was created by congress to be the central bank, independent of the influence of the u.s. treasury. it has never and was never intended to in fact be independent of congress or independent of the american people. in recent years the fed's extraordinary interventions into the economy's fiscal market has led some to call into question its independence. we do not ask for an audit for that reason. we ask for an audit because the american people ultimately must be able to hold the fed accountable and to do so they must know at least in retrospect what the fed has done over these many years that it has been without an audit. that is why i support h.r. 459, a bipartisan bill with mine and 273 other co-sponsors. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, when the sponsor of the bill talk about auditing the federal reserve, they don't mean a traditional audit. an outside independent accounting firm already audits the federal reserve's annual statements and g.a.o. is already empowered to review the annual statements and a broad range of its functions. in fact, the wall street reform legislation passed last congress, there is transparency and accountability when it comes to the federal reserve's finances and operations. however, this bill would instead jeopardize the fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to g.a.o. audit. the fed, like every other major central bank in the world, is independent, and congress has rightly insulated the fed from short-term political pressures. i agree with chairman bernanke that congressional review of the fed's monetary policy decisions would be a, quote, nightmarish scenario, especially judging the track record of intervening in the courts and other areas. we don't have to look further than the congress unnecessarily taking the country to the brink of default last summer in a display of politics. all of us, mr. speaker, want transparency. all of us here want to make sure that the federal reserve is working to carry out the economic goals of the american people, which are maximum employment and price stability, but that's not what this bill is about. this bill increases the likelihood that the fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy. i urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and preserve the independence of the fed so it can keep our currency stable and cultivate the best conditions for our economy to grow and create jobs. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we in congress have shown too frequently our inability in a political environment to make tough choices. that failure has led us in part to where we are today. i urge my colleagues to defeat this unwarranted, unjustified and dangerous legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's now my honor to yield time to the author of this bill, the gentleman from texas, the man who understands that not knowing should never be an answer, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. issa: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise obviously in strong support of this legislation. i don't know how anybody could be against transparency and they want secrecy, especially when the secrecy is to protect individuals who deal in trillions of dollars, much bigger than what the congress does, and these trillions of dollars bail out all the wealthy , rich people, the banks and the big corporations, international, overseas banks, bailing out europe, dealing with central banks around europe, around europe, and different places. and so say that we should have secrecy and say that it's political to have transparency, well, it's very political when you have a federal reserve that can bail out one company and not another company. that's pretty political. i know when people talk about independence and having this privacy of the central bank, it means they want secrecy and secrecy is not good. we should have privacy for the individual, but we should have openness of government all the time. and we drifted a long way from that. the billie essentially removes the -- the bill essentially removes the prohibition against a full audit. to audit we should know what kind of transactions are we should know about the deals that they made -- are. we should know about the deals they made when they were fixing the price of libor. these are the kind of things that were going on for years and we have no access to. so congress has this responsibility. we are reneging on our responsibility, we have the responsibility and we have not done it. so it is up to us to reassert ourselves. the constitution's very clear who has the responsibility. but the law conflicts with the constitution. the law comes along and says the congress can't do it. well, you can't change the constitution, prohibit the congress from finding out what's going on by writing a law. and this is what has happened. so it is time that we repeal this prohibition against a full audit of the federal reserve. we deserve it. the american people deserve it. the american people know about it and understand it and that's what they're asking for. they're sick and tired of what happened in the bailout and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a bad idea and i'm somewhat confused. by the way, we will be debating tomorrow a bill which restricts rule making and exempts the federal reserve as i read it. so we're kind of on again, off again about the federal reserve. it seems to me what we're talking about is taking some thick punches at the federal reserve but not doing anything serious. my republican colleagues brought up a reconciliation bill that was going to subject the consumer bureau to appropriations. so i offered an amendment to subject the federal reserve to appropriations. that was voted down. so we're not going to restrict their rulemaking, we're not going to subject them to appropriations, even though that's being done elsewhere, we're going to audit them. which is a way to look tough without reallyeing tough. does the gentleman want me to yield? mr. paul: i would. mr. frank: i yield. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. would you suggest that we should do both of those -- mr. frank: no. i will take back my time and say we should do none of them. i have a consistent position. i don't think we should do any of them. what i'm saying is people who get up there and beat their chest about how tough they are and they're not afraid of the federal reserve, but it exempt it from the great rule making bill and subject the consumer bureau, that terrible threat to the well-being of americans through the appropriations process, but let the federal reserve, which spends about $1 -- 150 times as much go free, i am inclined to doubt their seriousness. not their purity. that would be a violation of the rules. but their seriousness. this is a way to shake your fist at that big bad fed and it's not a good way. we hear a lot about uncertainty. remember, the federal reserve is now subject to a complete openness about all of its transactions with private companies. we did that last year. the gentleman from texas had a major role in that. when the federal reserve deals with any other institution we know what it does. we don't know it necessarily the same day. there were predictions about what terrible things were going to happen when the federal reserve did this and that and they haven't come true. maybe they will someday. but we will know it. this makes this exception, it says that we will audit the decisions about monetary policy. it says that members who vote on what the interest rates should be will now be audited. they will be subject to being quized about why they did that. now, i will tell my democrat friends, i understand that one part of this problem is the objection on the part of the republican party to the fact that our federal reserve, unusual among central banks, has a dual mandate. they are charged under a statute to be concerned about inflation and about unemployment. now, the republicans have an agenda that, they keep it on low keep keystone x.l. until next year, but they would -- keep it on low key until next year, but they would like to strip that part of the mandate. they would like the federal reserve to be only involved with inflation. they don't like that they deal with unemployment. this is a way, if it ever were to become law, no one thinks it is. look how tough we are, we're going to wave our fist at the fed. but it would be way to kind of put pressure on members of the open market committee and see what -- are you worried about unemployment when you did this? that's the audit. in this has nothing to do with how they spend their money. it has nothing to do with whom they contract. that's what people usually think about audit. it has nothing to do with the way in which -- whether they're efficient or not. it's an ideological agenda by a group of people who didn't like what the federal reserve was doing, under by the way george bush, there was reference to the bailouts which of course were under the bush administration. one of the things we did in the bill two years ago, all my republican colleagues voted against the bill, was to take away from the federal reserve the power they used under president bush to give -- lend $85 billion to a.i.g. we rescinded that. i don't think mr. bernanke, a bush appointee, was doing the wrong thing necessarily. but we took back that power. so this is probably a show because on the two serious efforts to curtail the fed's powers, my republican colleagues aren't there. but secondly, and as i said, i'm consistent, i don't think we should do any of these things. i think what we did with regard to openness makes sense. i'm not pretending to be tough when i'm not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. frank: but what it will do is destabilize. we have worries about expectations. there is a fear that we will be too inflationary or that we won't grow enough. people on wall street are not as sophisticated as some people think. they're not even sophisticated about their own business, as we know. they will read this and take it more seriously than the members here do. and it will destabilize some of the financial system. they will see it as political interference, not with the contracting procedures, not with the budget, not with how many cards they have, but with how they decide on interest rates. and the perception that the congress is going to politicize the way in which interest rates are set will in itself have a destabilizing effect. and as i said, nobody here thinks this is ever going to become law. but there is this fear on the part of others who don't know that that will translate into precisely the kind of uncertainty, precisely the kind of unsettling on investment that my republican colleagues pretend to fear and it will also send them the message, stop worrying about unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: as i introduce my good friend and leader on this issue, mr. chaffetz, i might note that when the word republican and democrat are used in this hall, hopefully when there's 45 democratic members on this bill as co-sponsors, we'd recognize this is a bipartisan bill. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. and i thank the chairman. i also want to appreciate and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless pursuit of this openness and transparency. without his leadership we wouldn't be at this point today. and i applaud him and thank him for that. some would say that the fed is already audited but there are some key points where it is not. these include transactions with foreign central banks, discussion and actions on monetary policy, and transactions made under the direction of the federal open market committee. if we're truly about openness and transparency in this nation, which dishes -- distinguishes above and beyond so many others, we deserve and need to know this information. we need also understand the imperative that is before us because the freshman reserve balance sheet has exploded in recent years. since 2008 it has literally tripled. gone from $908 billion on its balance sheet to over $2.8 trillion. nearly a 33% annualized increase since january of 2008. the federal reserve ownership of treasuries has also increased substantially in recent years. having more than doubled from january of 2008 to january of 2012. where it went from $741 billion to $1.66 trillion. let's understand also that in fiscal year 2011 the federal reserve purchased 76% of new treasuries. certainly this distribute american people and this congress deserves more openness, transparency and at the very least an audit. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation and again congratulate dr. paul on continued hope for his pursuit of this issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield mrs. maloney two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: this is an absolute terrible idea. although i am in total agreement with mr. paul that transparency is a virtue, i also believe that the federal reserve must be free of any political influence. and i'm afraid that this bill opens the door for precisely that to happen. and i don't believe that there's any one -- anyone in this chamber that thinks that what the process needs is more politics. make no mistake, i agrie degree that maximum transparency is necessary and desirable and that is precisely why we included numerous transparency requirements in the financial reform bill as well as numerous audit requirements. we authorized the g.a.o. to audit the fed's emergency lending facility. we authorized the g.a.o. to ought audit any special facility created within the fed. and we required the fed to issue an assessment two years after institutions were granted access to the fed's discount window. we crafted those measures and more in a way that ensures transparency, but still preserves the independence of the federal reserve in its decision making process, in the critical area of monetary policy. but this bill, as it now stands, would provide information without a proper context. and that could have unintended consequences and have totally unwarranted effects on consumer confidence in our financial institutions. if the individual numbers of the open markets committee know that each one of their decisions are subject to potential political pressure, it would significantly alter that decision making process. an open door to the federal open markets committee would invite political pressures and having decisions that are driven by politician and polling data is not -- politics and polling data is not the path to sound monetary policy. decisions about monetary policy should never be based on the raw political needs of the moment but instead should always be based strictly on objective economic contributions and guided by the twin mandates of full employment. the unintended consequences of this bill would be to open the federal reserve to political influence and that would have a negative impact on the fed's independence and its ability to produce sound economic policy. i urge a strong bipartisan no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the constitution grants us the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and we've delegated this to the fed. unfortunately we've ta tied our hands behind our back with respect to seeing what they're doing and it's our duty to conduct oversight. a moment ago mr. frank said the audit was just fist pounding and chest pounding. i disagree. it's the first step, it's us doing our homework to determine what needs to be done to reform the fed. chairman bernanke said this bill would be a nightmare scenario of political meddling in monetary affairs. i disagree. i think the current situation is a nightmare scenario in unaccountable government. as justice bran dies said, sunshine is always the best disinfectant. as a member of the oversight and government reform committee, we demand transparency from agencies like the g.s.a., the t.s.a., and other fed agencies. i join my friend and neighbor in congress, dr. paul, in demanding for the american people that sunshine be shined into the fed and this audit be conducted. i urge my colleagues to support this bill because the american people have a right to know. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman from massachusetts, one minute, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: to illustrate the misconceptions about this bill, let's refer to what the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, had to say. he said 76% of the purchases of this and that -- well, if this was so nontransparent, i don't know how he knows that. he doesn't have a subpoena. but the fact is, yes, he knows that, because of the transparency we built in. but the more important, the details, the specifics of every one of those transactions is already public. this isn't about those transactions and with about whom were done and under what time period. it's about the motives of the people setting monetary policy. let me address the constitution. yes, it is true that the constitution gives us the power to do this. the constitution gives us a lot of power. it gives us power to declare war on canada. it declares -- gives us the power to do a lot of things. wise people pick and choose which powers they use, but this is not about getting more information about their transactions or that is out there. this is an effort to give politicses, a wonderful group of people of which i am one, more direct involvement on the setting of interest rates than is good for the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to recognize for one minute the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. amash: i want to thank chairman issa and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless work on this issue for many decades. mr. speaker, what is the federal reserve? i think even many members of this body couldn't answer that question, and yet congress has delegated its constitutional authority to this committee of bankers and presidential appointees. congress has given so much power while knowing so little. the central bank, we trust the federal reserve for managing inflation. that means the fed can change the value of americans' life savings, their mortgages. lately the fed has taken on the role of, quote, lender of last resort. it has promised billions of dollars to the country's largest financial institutions. when investors wouldn't buy mortgages, the fed did. when creditors became worry of congress' spending bin g, the fed stepped in. -- binge, the fed stepped it. the government's accountants understandably were outraged saying they couldn't, quote, satisfactorily audit the federal reserve system without the authority of examining the fed's largest assets. congress should be weary of all types of central planning. we should be especially vigilant against unaccountable groups that profoundly affect americans' lives and liberty. pass this bill and let's audit the fed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mudd. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman, and let me say, first, that this bill is not about sunshine. it's not about transparency. it is about dissatisfaction that some individuals have with the man indicate that congress has given -- mandate that congress has given to the federal reserve. the gentleman who just spoke is absolutely right. they're supposed to deal with inflation. that's what we told them to do in their mandate. they're supposed to deal with unemployment. that's what we told them to do in the mandate we gave them. and some people over there are dissatisfied with the fact that they don't want them to deal with unemployment. they don't want them to try to adjust and make changes that will be beneficial to our economy. and if they don't want that, they ought to just introduce a bill that repeals the mandate that we gave to them. don't come and say we're talking about sunshine and transparency. every time i turn on the television now i hear the federal reserve, chairman bernanke, and members of the federal reserve talking about how the economy is going. that is not lack of sunshine and lack of information. we -- i thought we had dealt with this when i was the ranking member of the subcommittee and mr. paul was the chairman -- or i was the chairman and he was the ranking member. mr. paul's problem is he doesn't like the federal reserve. he's in favor of doing away with the federal reserve. and if -- and that's an honest position, but don't come in and try to cloak it in the guise of this agency is not transparent or it lacks sunshine. if you don't like the mandate that they have, then have the guts to stand up and introduce a bill that says we're doing away with the federal reserve and -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. watt: if you think we're in trouble now, you get the politics and the congress involved in transactions with foreign governments and decisions about how we get ourselves out of this unemployment situation. if we have some answers about how to get out of unemployment, i would assume we would come forward with them and nobody on this floor, this congress has done nothing to take out the ploun -- unemployment bill, so i'm glad we have the federal reserve over there at least trying to figuring out how to make some adjustments in our economy that will deal with unemployment. and the last thing i want is for this congress to be second guessing or an auditor that is not elected by anybody to be second guessing the decisions of the people who are on the federal reserve. an auditor might be a good accountant. he can count, but i want somebody on the federal reserve and hopefully it would be nice to have some people in congress who can make some decisions about how to deal with unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, the rules of the house prohibits going after someone's motivation and i'm very concerned that a bill that in a substantially similar form was placed into dodd-frank by then chairman barney frank is now being characterized as somehow ill-intended and mischievous activity by the proponents. i would trust that's not the intent of the speakers on behalf of that side of the aisle about this bipartisan bill that is virtually identical to the language that barney frank put into dodd-frank. i'd yield. mr. watt: i just want to be clear that mr. frank and i voted against the bill that you are talking about. so don't try to make it sound like me and mr. frank's bill. we voted against the bill. this is ron paul's bill, and we thought it was a terrible idea then and we -- mr. issa: reclaiming my time. mr. watt: thinks it's terrible now. mr. issa: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from texas. mr. paul: did you vote against dodd-frank? because it was in dodd-frank. it wasn't a separate bill. maybe on a separate vote you might have but it was in dodd-frank. mr. issa: i now recognize the gentleman from montana for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. rehberg: tomorrow the house of representatives will vote to pull back the secretive curtain of the federal reserve. the american people have a right to know. it's an important step in openness in government transparency that's long overdue. just a few years ago the senate rejected an effort to add the strong audit language to the dodd-frank bill, but times are changing. our economy struggles and job creation lags. it's more important than ever to look under the hood of the federal reserve. we need to find out exactly what they are doing and why. that way we can determine if the fed is actually hurting our economy and discouraging job growth. in a drauks, no government body -- democracy, in government body should be allowed to hide behind a curtain of secrecy. that's why i stand behind this legislation. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the chair will observe a moment of silent. will all present please rise in onans of a moment of silence. -- in observance of a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, debate continues on h.r. 459. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from massachusetts 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i'm glad that the committee on government oversight is not the one that started. in fact, there was a motion to include language like this offered to the financial reform bill. i voted no, as did mr. watt. it wasn't included in the bill. it's true i voted for the bill. of course, the gentleman from texas voted against the bill. if you vote for the whole bill as taken on how you feel he was against it. when it went to conference it was not in the senate bill which was the text of the conference so we it did not come up and -- so it did not come up and no republican conferee offered it as an amendment. that is in the conference that language which i and the gentleman from north carolina voted against was not offered by any member of the conference, democrat or republican. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: history records that democrats broadly voted for it when it was voted out of this body. nothing more needs to be said. with that i recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman from california for the time, and i want to commend the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for his excellent work on this issue. recently i had a constituent say to me in a town hall meeting they thought it was time for congress to start putting some mandates on the federal government. they're tired of government mandates on them. why don't we mandate, why don't we hold them accountable? this is a piece of legislation that does exactly that. it requires the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and of the federal reserve bank by the comptroller general before the end of the year. that is significant. a timeline to do a job, to be held accountable to the people of this great nation for how they spend their time, their money, the decisions they make that affect us. it is imperative that we get this economy back on track. the actions that we will vote on today are part of that. having a federal reserve that is accountable, accountable to our constituents, accountable to the people of this nation. i commend the gentleman for a move toward transparency and accountability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 459 which passed out of the oversight committee without even a single hearing and without testimony from any federal reserve officials. let me be clear, the government accountability office has had the authority to audit the federal reserve's books for three decades. in 2010, the dodd-frank act expanded the types of audits g.a.o. conducts of the federal reserve as well as the data the fed must disclose to the dub. dodd-frank required g.a.o. to audit the emergency financial assistance provided during the financial crisis. the act also opens discount window operations and open market operations to audit so g.a.o. can assess the operational integrity, collateral policies, fairness, use of third-party contractors. and dodd-frank requires the federal reserve to release information regarding borrowers and counterparties participating in discount lending programs and open market operations. mr. speaker, as a conferee who helped craft the final dodd-frank legislation, i supported all of these provisions. i believe other areas of the federal reserve's operations are also right for audit. during the committee's consideration of this legislation, i offered an amendment that would require g.a.o. to perform an audit of the independent foreclosure re views. 14 mortgage servicers have been required to establish a process under which borrowers can request an independent review of their loan histories. but at the end of may, only 200,000 out of 4.4 million borrowers have requested an independent review of their foreclosure cases. we need to understand whether the design of the program is limited to a number of borrowers who sought reviews of their cases. further, it is unclear how the types and amounts of remediation are being determined. this is precisely the type of issue that should be reviewed by the g.a.o. the public has the right and the congress has a responsibility to know and understand the transactions and enforcement transactions undertake bin the nation's central bank. however when congress established the fed in 1913 it understood that independence from political interference was critical to the bank's ability to fulfill its monetary policy responsibilities. the dodd-frank act was carefully crafted to expand transparency while preserving the protections that ensured the independence of the federal reserve's internal deliberations on monetary policy matters. the board of governors of the federal reserve must be able to pursue the policies it considers most response to have our nation's current economic conditions and most likely to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. we should not allow g.a.o. examinations to be the backdoor through which politics intrudes on monetary policy. which is what this legislation will allow. opening the federal reserve's internal policy deliberations to g.a.o. review would influence how such deliberations are conducted and potentially the policies that are chosen best -- thus degrading the fed's independence. last week chairman of the federal reserve, mr. bernanke, described the potential impact of this bill to the financial services committee and said, and i quote, the nightmare scenario i have is one in which some future fed chairman would decide to raise the federal funds rate by 25 basis points and somebody would say, i don't like that decision, i want the g.a.o. to go in and get all the resorts -- records, get all the transcripts, get all the preparetory materials and give us an independent opinion whether or not that was the right decision. i share chairman bernanke's concern. for that reason during the markup of this legislation in the oversight committee, i offered an amendment that would have retained the protections for the board of governors in term of monetary policy deliberations to ensure that the audit required by this legislation did not intrude on the federal reserve's independence. i continue to believe this provision is needed to ensure this bill does not inhibit the ability of the federal reserve to implement monetary policies to strengthen our nation's economy as it has done repeatedly throughout the recent financial cry sills. the speaker pro tempore: -- crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve his time? mr. cummings: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 91 fourts minutes remain -- -- 9 1/4 minute remaining. mr. issa: thank you. i now yield to the gentlelady from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank dr. paul for his leadership on this very important issue. mr. speaker, the federal reserve lent out $16 trillion during the fiscal crisis. that's larger than the entire u.s. economy or worse our federal debt. trillions of taxpayer dollars and we have very little understanding of where it went. congress holds the purse. but we have no oversight over how the fed manages the funds. this is why i've co-sponsored a bipartisan effort to audit the fed in full. it's our responsibility. current monetary policy audits of the fed are insufficient. most fed operations consist of transactions with foreign central banks and yet they are exempt from review. when corruption is suspected, a common refrain is, follow the money. with the historic sovereign debt crisis brewing in europe, we must look closely at our own balance sheet. we must follow the money. as a c.p.a. i know we need more transparency in washington. it should start with the federal reserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to mr. kucinich one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article about the fed's policy model sacrifices its maximum employment mandate and targets 5% to 6% unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article from bloomberg news that talks about how secret fed loans gave banks billions that were undisclosed to congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: this is all about disclosure and accountability. you know, the fed's not some kind of hocus pocus black box operation. the fed essentially supplants the constitutional mandate in article 1, section 8, that belongs to the congress of the united states. let's look at some recent history here. 2008, subprime meltdown, collateralized debt obligation, go back for mortgage-backed securities. people losing their homes. the fed looked the other way. and we're saying, oh, don't go into the fed, it would be political. yes, it's political. we have unemployment because of politics. we have people losing their homes because of politics. we have banks getting uncalculated amounts of money from the federal reserve and we don't even know about it. meanwhile people can't get a loan to keep their home or keep their business. audit the fed, you bet we should audit the fed. it's time that congress stood for its constitutional role. article 1, section 8, power to create money. it's time we stood up for america's 99%. it's time that we stood up to the federal reserve that right now acts like it's some kind of high exalted priesthood, unaccountable in a democracy. let's change that by voting for >> live coverage of the house at 12:00 noon. >> mitt romney speak to the veterans of foreign wars convention. house debate on a bill sponsored by representative ron paul to acquire an audit of the federal reserve. >> wednesday on washington journal, a congressman will discussed u.s. relations with the mexican president. then a, grossmaa fight over thes and defense cuts is talked about. the editor in chief of reason.com will take your calls. washington journal is live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the brookings institution. see it live starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> this weekend. >> let me open up the discussion by asking what the nature of the clash between truman. is this a clash of policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures, johns hopkins professor elliott on the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of a korean -- the korean war. saturday. sunday, more from the contenders. the political leaders that changed history. his grandfather was the vice president's. -- vice-president. he ran twice against eisenhower. 7:30 eastern. the veterans of foreign wars convention. he said he kept his promises to end the iraq war responsibly and to wind down the war in afghanistan. from nevada, his remarks are 35 minutes. >> thank you so much. it is now my honor to introduce someone who is no stranger to the veterans of foreign wars of the united states or to the vfw national convention stage. he was born in hawaii, raised with midwestern values and educated at columbia and harvard. he served in the state senate for eight years and before becoming a u.s. senator from illinois in 2004. he would co-sponsor numerous vfw supported legislation like the post-9/11 gi bill. he would attend the vfw washington office legislative conference reception and appear on this stage for two years in a row as a candidate for our nation's highest office. then he appeared to us again after he got the job in 2009 when he would exchange diplomatic notes with the russian president to revitalize the u.s.-russia said joint commission and would go on to sign into law and other top legislative priority, advance appropriations for the department of veterans affairs. he said he would take care of veterans, service members, and their families, and he has been true to his word. [applause] mr. president, i would be definitely remiss not to add our profound appreciation for all of the superlative work the first lady and dr. biden do for the troops and especially their families. [applause] thanks to you, mr. president, and vice president biden, for these two extraordinary ladies. and now, a distinguished guest, please heartily welcome the 44th president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> god bless you. >> thank you. >> thank you. hello. thank you so much. please, please, everybody have a seat. commander denoyer, thank you for your introduction, and your service in vietnam and on behalf of america's veterans. i want to thank your executive director, bob wallace; your next commander, who i look forward to working with, john hamilton. and to gwen rankin, leanne lemley, and the entire ladies auxiliary, thank you for your patriotic service to america. i stand before you as our hearts still ache over the tragedy in aurora, colorado. yesterday i was in aurora, with families whose loss is hard to imagine -- with the wounded, who are fighting to recover; with a community and a military base in the midst of their grief. and they told me of the loved ones they lost. and here today, it's fitting to recall those who wore our nation's uniform: staff sergeant jesse childress -- an air force reservist, 29 years old, a cyber specialist who loved sports, the kind of guy, said a friend, who'd help anybody. petty officer third class john larimer -- 27 years old, who, like his father and grandfather before him, joined the navy, and who is remembered as an outstanding shipmate. rebecca wingo -- 32 years old, a veteran of the air force, fluent in chinese, who served as a translator; a mother, whose life will be an inspiration to her two little girls. and jonathan blunk -- from reno, just 26 years old, but a veteran of three navy tours, whose family and friends will always know that in that theater he gave his own life to save another. these young patriots were willing to serve in faraway lands, yet they were taken from us here at home. and yesterday i conveyed to their families a message on behalf of all americans: we honor your loved ones. we salute their service. and as you summon the strength to carry on and keep bright their legacy, we stand with you as one united american family. veterans of foreign wars, in you i see the same shining values, the virtues that make america great. when our harbor was bombed and fascism was on the march, when the fighting raged in korea and vietnam, when our country was attacked on that clear september morning, when our forces were sent to iraq -- you answered your country's call. because you know what americans must always remember -- our nation only endures because there are patriots who protect it. in the crucible of battle, you were tested in ways the rest of us will never know. you carry in your hearts the memory of the comrades you lost. for you understand that we must honor our fallen heroes not just on memorial day, but all days. and when an american goes missing, or is taken prisoner, we must do everything in our power to bring them home. even after you took off the uniform, you never stopped serving. you took care of each other -- fighting for the benefits and care you had earned. and you've taken care of the generations that followed, including our newest veterans from iraq and afghanistan. on behalf of all our men and women in uniform, and on behalf of the american people, i want to thank you, vfw. thank you for your outstanding work. of course, some among you -- our vietnam veterans -- didn't always receive that thanks, at least not on time. this past memorial day, i joined some of you at the wall to begin the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war. and it was another chance to say what should have been said all along: you did your duty, and you made us proud. and as this 50th anniversary continues, i'd ask all our vietnam vets to stand, or raise your hand, as we say: thank you and welcome home. every generation among you served to keep us strong and free. and it falls to us, those that follow, to preserve what you won. four years ago, i stood before you at a time of great challenge for our nation. we were engaged in two wars. al qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens in pakistan. many of our alliances were frayed. our standing in the world had suffered. we were in the worst recession of our lifetimes. around the world, some questioned whether the united states still had the capacity to lead. so, four years ago, i made you a promise. i pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. as president, that's what i've done. and as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that's required, you don't just have my words, you have my deeds. you have my track record. you have the promises i've made and the promises that i've kept. i pledged to end the war in iraq honorably, and that's what we've done. [applause] after i took office, we removed nearly 150,000 u.s. troops from iraq. and some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake. they would have kept tens of thousands of our forces in iraq -- indefinitely, without a clear mission. well, when you're commander-in- chief, you owe the troops a plan, you owe the country a plan -- and that includes recognizing not just when to begin wars, but also how to end them. so we brought our troops home responsibly. they left with their heads held high, knowing they gave iraqis a chance to forge their own future. and today, there are no americans fighting in iraq, and we are proud of all the americans who served there. [applause] i pledged to make it a priority to take out the terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11. and as a candidate, i said that if we had osama bin laden in our sights, we would act to keep america safe -- even if it meant going into pakistan. some of you remember, at the time, that comment drew quite a bit of criticism. but since i took office, we've worked with our allies and our partners to take out more top al qaeda leaders than any time since 9/11. and thanks to the courage and the skill of our forces, osama bin laden will never threaten america again, and al qaeda is on the road to defeat. [applause] i pledged to finish the job in afghanistan. after years of drift, we had to break the momentum of the taliban, and build up the capacity and the capability of afghans. and so, working with our commanders, we came up with a new strategy, and we ordered additional forces to get the job done. this is still a tough fight. but thanks to the incredible services and sacrifices of our troops, we pushed the taliban back; we're training afghan forces; we've begun the transition to afghan lead. again, there are those who argued against a timeline for ending this war -- or against talking about it publicly. but you know what, that's not a plan for america's security either. after 10 years of war, and given the progress we've made, i felt it was important that the american people -- and our men and women in uniform -- know our plan to end this war responsibly. [applause] and so by the end of this summer, more than 30,000 of our troops will have come home. next year, afghans will take the lead for their own security. in 2014, the transition will be complete. and even as our troops come home, we'll have a strong partnership with the afghan people, and we will stay vigilant so afghanistan is never again a source for attacks against america. [applause] we're not just ending these wars; we're doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. moreover, it's allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of american leadership. we're leading from europe to the asia pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. we're leading the fight against nuclear dangers. we've applied the strongest sanctions ever on iran and north korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. [applause] we're leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the middle east and north africa as they demand their rights; protecting the libyan people as they rid the world of muammar qaddafi. today, we're also working for a transition so the syrian people can have a better future, free of the assad regime. and given the regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the united states, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. and we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity. because we're leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward america. there's more confidence in our leadership. we see it everywhere we go. we saw it as grateful libyans waved american flags. we see it across the globe -- when people are asked, which country do you admire the most, one nation comes out on top -- the united states of america. so this is the progress that we've made. thanks to the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, we're winding down a decade of war; we're destroying the terrorist network that attacked us; we're strengthening the alliances that extend our values. and today, every american can be proud that the united states is safer and stronger and more respected in the world. and all this allows us to fulfill another promise that i made to you four years ago -- strengthening our military. after 10 years of operations, our soldiers will now have fewer and shorter deployments, which means more time on the home front to keep their families strong; more time to heal from the wounds of war; more time to improve readiness and prepare for future threats. as president, i've continued to make historic investments to keep our armed forces strong. and guided by our new defense strategy, we will maintain our military superiority. it will be second to none as long as i am president and well into the future. we've got the best-trained, best-led, best-equipped military in history. and as commander-in-chief i am going to keep it that way. [applause] and by the way, given all the rhetoric lately -- it is political season -- let's also set the record straight on the budget. those big, across-the-board cuts, including defense, that congress said would occur next year if they couldn't reach a deal to reduce the deficit? let's understand, first of all, there's no reason that should happen, because people in congress ought to be able to come together and agree on a plan, a balanced approach that reduces the deficit and keeps our military strong. it should be done. and there are a number of republicans in congress who don't want you to know that most of them voted for these cuts. now they're trying to wriggle out of what they agreed to. instead of making tough choices to reduce the deficit, they'd rather protect tax cuts for some of the wealthiest americans, even if it risks big cuts in our military. and i've got to tell you, vfw, i disagree. if the choice is between tax cuts that the wealthiest americans don't need and funding our troops that they definitely need to keep our country strong, i will stand with our troops every single time. [applause] so let's stop playing politics with our military. let's get serious and reduce our deficit and keep our military strong. let's take some of the money that we're saving because we're not fighting in iraq and because we're winding down in afghanistan -- use half that money to pay down our deficit; let's use half of it to do some nation-building here in the united states of america. let's keep taking care of our extraordinary military families. for the first time ever, we've made military families and veterans a top priority not just at dod, not just at the va, but across the government. as richard mentioned, this has been a mission for my wife, michelle, and vice president joe biden's wife, dr. jill biden. today, more people across america in every segment of society are joining forces to give our military families the respect and the support that they deserve. and there's another way we can honor those who serve. it may no longer be a crime for con artists to pass themselves off as heroes, but one thing is certain -- it is contemptible. so this week, we will launch a new website, a living memorial, so the american people can see who's been awarded our nation's highest honors. because no american hero should ever have their valor stolen. this leads me to another promise i made four years ago -- upholding america's sacred trust with our veterans. i promised to strengthen the va, and that promise has been kept. in my first year, we achieved the largest percentage increase in the va budget in 30 years. and we're going to keep making historic investments in our veterans. when richard came to the oval office, we talked about what those automatic budget cuts -- sequestration -- could mean for the va. so my administration has made it clear -- your veteran's benefits are exempt from sequestration. they are exempt. and because advance appropriations is now the law of the land, veterans' health care is protected from the budget battles in washington. i promised you that i'd stand up for veterans' health care. as long as i'm president, i will not allow va health care to be turned into a voucher system, subject to the whims of the insurance market. some have argued for this plan. i could not disagree more. you don't need vouchers, you need the va health care that you have earned and that you depend on. [applause] so we've made dramaticinvestments to help care for our veterans. for our vietnam veterans, we declared that more illnesses are now presumed connected to your exposure to agent orange. as a result of our decision, vietnam-era vets and your families received nearly $4 billion in disability pay. you needed it; you fought for it. we heard you and we got it done. [applause] we've added mobile clinics for our rural veterans; more tailored care for our women veterans; unprecedented support for veterans with traumatic brain injury. all tolled, we've made va health care available to nearly 800,000 veterans who didn't have it before. and we're now supporting caregivers and families with the skills and the stipends to help care for the veterans that they love. of course, more veterans in the system means more claims. so we've hired thousands of claims processors. we're investing in paperless systems. to their credit, the dedicated folks at the va are now completing one million claims a year. but there's been a tidal wave of new claims. and when i hear about veterans waiting months, or years, for your benefits -- it is unacceptable. and we are doing something about it. we're taking all those folks who processed your agent orange claims -- more than 1,200 experts -- and giving them a new mission, attack the backlog. we're prioritizing veterans with the most serious disabilities. and the va and dod will work harder towards a seamless transition so new veterans aren't just piled on to the backlog. and we will not rest -- i will not be satisfied until we get this right. and today, i'm also calling on all those who help our vets complete their claims -- state vas, physicians and veteran groups like the vfw -- to join us. you know how this can work better, so let's get it done, together. we're also focused on the urgent needs of our veterans with ptsd. we've poured tremendous resources into this fight -- thousands of more counselors and more clinicians, more care and more treatment. and we've made it easier for veterans with ptsd to qualify for va benefits. but after a decade of war, it's now an epidemic. we're losing more troops to suicide -- one every single day -- than we are in combat. according to some estimates, about 18 veterans are taking their lives each day -- more every year than all the troops killed in iraq and afghanistan combined. that's a tragedy. it's heartbreaking. it should not be happening in the united states of america. so when i hear about servicemembers and veterans who had the courage to seek help but didn't get it, who died waiting, that's an outrage. and i've told secretary panetta, chairman dempsey and secretary shinseki we've got to do better. this has to be all hands on deck. so our message to everyone who's ever worn the uniform -- if you're hurting, it's not a sign of weakness to seek help, it's a sign of strength. and when you do, we'll be there and do more to help -- including more counselors and clinicians to help you heal. we need to end this tragedy, vfw. and we're going to work together to make it happen. [applause] so, too with our campaign to end homelessness among our veterans. we've now helped to bring tens of thousands of veterans off the streets and into permanent housing. this has to be a core mission, because every veteran who has fought for america ought to have a home in america. and this brings me to the last promise i want to discuss with you. four years ago, i said that i'd do everything i could to help our veterans realize the american dream, to enlist you in building a stronger america. after all, our veterans have the skills that america needs. so today, our economy is growing and creating jobs, but it's still too hard for too many folks to find work, especially our younger veterans, our veterans from iraq and afghanistan. and with a million more troops rejoining civilian life in the years ahead -- and looking for work -- we've got to step up our game, at every stage of their careers. so today, i'm announcing a major overhaul of our transition assistance program. we're going to set up a kind of "reverse boot camp" for our departing servicemembers. starting this year, they'll get more personalized assistance as they plan their careers. we'll provide the training they need to find that job, or pursue that education, or start that business. and just as they've maintained their military readiness, we'll have new standards of "career readiness." in addition, by making the post-9/11 gi bill a priority, we've helped more than 800,000 veterans and their families pursue their education. and i've issued an executive order to help put a stop to schools that are ripping off our veterans. i've directed the federal government to step up on jobs. since i took office, we've hired more than 200,000 veterans into the federal government. we made it a priority. and we're keeping track -- every agency, every department -- what are you doing for our veterans? i've challenged community health centers to hire thousands of veterans as physicians and nurses. and as we help local communities hire new police officers and firefighters and first responders, we're giving a preference to veterans. we're also fighting to get more vets hired in the private sector. with new tools like our online veterans jobs bank, we're connecting veterans directly to jobs. we're helping thousands of veterans get certified for good- paying jobs in manufacturing. we succeeded in passing tax credits for businesses that hire our veterans and our wounded warriors. and this morning, i signed into law the veteran skills to jobs act -- making it easier for veterans to transfer their outstanding military skills into the licenses and credentials they need to get civilian jobs. if you are a young man that is in charge of a platoon or millions of dollars of equipment and are taking responsibility, or you're a medic out in the field who is saving lives every single day -- when you come home, you need to be credentialed and certified quickly so you can get on the job. people should understand how skilled you are. and there shouldn't be bureaucrats or runarounds. we've got to put those folks to work. last summer, i also challenged the private sector to hire or train 100,000 veterans or their spouses. michelle and jill biden have been leading the effort, through joining forces. and so far, thousands of patriotic businesses have hired or trained more than 90,000 veterans and spouses. and our message to companies is simple -- if you want somebody who gets the job done, then hire a vet. hire a vet. hire a vet and they will make you proud just like they've made america proud. and we're fighting for veterans who want to start their own businesses, including more training in entrepreneurship. it's one of the reasons we've cut taxes -- 18 times for small businesses, including veteran- owned businesses. and the effects ripple out, because vets are more likely to hire vets. so today, we can point to progress. more veterans are finding jobs; the unemployment rate for veterans has come down. yes, it's still too high, but it's coming down. and now we've got to sustain that momentum. it's one of the reasons i've proposed to congress a veterans jobs corps to put our veterans back to work protecting and rebuilding america. and today, i am again calling on congress -- pass this veterans jobs corps and extend the tax credits for businesses that hire veterans so we can give these american heroes the jobs and opportunities that they deserve. [applause] so, vfw, these are the promises that i made. these are the promises that i've kept. where we still have more to do, we will not rest. that's my vow to you. i've got your back. i've got your six. because we have a solemn obligation to all who serve -- not just for the years you're in uniform, but for all the decades that follow, and because even though today's wars are ending, the hard work of taking care of our newest veterans has only just begun. just as you protected america, we're going to pass our country to the next generation, stronger and safer and more respected in the world. so if anyone tries to tell you that our greatness has passed, that america is in decline, you tell them this -- just like the 20th century, the 21st is going to be another great american century. for we are americans, blessed with the greatest form of government ever devised by man, a democracy dedicated to freedom and committed to the ideals that still light the world. we will never apologize for our way of life; we will never waver in its defense. we are a nation that freed millions and turned adversaries into allies. we are the americans who defended the peace and turned back aggression. we are americans who welcome our global responsibilities and our global leadership. the united states has been, and will remain, the one indispensable nation in world affairs. and you, you are the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen, the marines and the coast guardsmen who have kept us strong. we will honor your legacy. and we will ensure that the military you served, and the america that we love, remains the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. god bless you. god bless all of our veterans. and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> 16, congressman henry cuellar discuss relations with the mexican president. then scott garrett talks about tax cuts and defense sequestration. and later nick gillespie will take your calls about his article highlighting entitlement gaps between the generations. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> mitt romney spoke to the veterans of foreign wars. one day after pope. he accused the white house of leaking classified information that killed osama bin laden and called for a special counsel to investigate. he outlined his policy on the future of u.s. involvement in afghanistan and iran. his remarks from reno--- reno, nev. are 25 minutes. >> thank you so much. it is a source of pride for us to see a combat veteran from massachusetts serving as a national commander of the vfw. great job, cmdr. thank you. the auxiliary president, incoming national commander john hamilton, executive director bob wallace, distinguished guests and members, thank you for your generous welcome. i want to start with a few words about the tragedy in colorado last week. we have since learned that among the victims were four people who served or were serving our country in uniform. today our hearts go out to the families. an air force veteran, an army veteran and member of the air force reserves and a veteran who died shielding his girlfriend from the spray of bullets. the loss of four americans who served our country only adds to the tragedy of that day. all americans here are grateful for their service and saddened by their deaths. we mourn them and we will remember them. the vfw is now over 2 million strong. it has a special place in america's heart. some of you fought recently in iraq or afghanistan. others are old enough to have marched by orders of franklin roosevelt. whatever your age, whether you are republican or democrat, whenever you served, there is one thing you have in common -- you answered the call of your country, in a time of war. whenever america has been tested, you stepped forward. you come from our farms, our great cities, our small towns and quiet neighborhoods. many of you have known of violence so that your neighbors could know peace. it is an honor to address you today. [applause] our veterans are part of a proud tradition that stretches back to the battlefield of lexington and concord. now to places like kandahar. our men and women have added proud achievements to their service and president obama appointed some of them yesterday in his speech. anytime our military accomplishes a vital mission, it is a proud moment for our nation. but we owe our veterans and military more than an accounting of our successes. they deserve a fair and frank assessment of the whole picture of where we are and where we want to be. when it comes to national security and foreign policy, the last few years have been a time of declining influence and of missed opportunity. consider some of the challenges i discussed with you at the last national convention. since then, has the american economy recovered? has our ability to shape world events been enhanced or diminished? have we gained greater confidence among our allies and greater respect from our adversaries? has the most severe security threat facing america and our friends, a nuclear-armed iran, become more likely or less likely? these are measures of the ultimate test of american leadership and by these standards, we have not seen much in the president's first term that inspires confidence in a second. the president's policy that made it harder to recover from the deepest recession in 70 years. exposed the military to cuts that no one can justify. compromised our national security secrets. [applause] and in dealings with other nations, he has given trust where it is not earned, insults where it was not deserved and apology where it was not due. [applause] from berlin to cairo to the united nations, president obama has shared his view of america and his place among nations. i have come here today to share mine. i am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of america. [applause] i am not ashamed of american power. i take pride that throughout history, our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict and help where there was affliction and despair. i do not view america as one more place on the map or one more power to the balanced i believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known and our employees is needed today as ever before. [applause] and i am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion. this century must be an american century. in 1941, henry louis called on his countrymen realizing their strength to create the first great american century and they did. together with their allies, they won world war ii. and america took its place as leader of the free world. across the globe, they fought, they bled, they lead. they showed the world the extraordinary courage of the american heart. that remains unchanged today but sadly the president has diminished american leadership. the world is dangerous, destructive and the two men running fro the commander in chief lifespan face the challenges we face. like a watchman in the night we must remain vigilant. we have the strongest economy and military in the world. if by necessity we must employ it, we must wield our strength with resolve. in an american century, we lead the free world and the free world leads the entire world. if they do not have the strength of vision to lead, other powers will take our place, pulling history in a different direction. a just and peaceful world depends on a strong and confident america. if i become commander in chief, the united states of america will fulfill its destiny and its duty. [applause] now our leadership depends on our economic strength, on our military strength and our moral strength. if any one of those can compensate. the strength of our economy is in jeopardy. a healthy economy is what underwrites american power. when growth is missing, government revenues fall, social spending rises and washington looks to cut defense spending as the easy way out. that includes our president. today we are months away from an arbitrary the budget reduction that would saddle the military with $1 trillion in cut. it would impair our ability to meet and deter threats. do not bother trying to finding a serious military rationale behind that unless that rationale is wishful thinking. strategy is not driving the president's massive defense cuts. his own secretary of defense warned those reductions would be devastating. they would weaken an already stretched system. if i am president, i will not let that happen. [applause] this is no time for the president's radical cuts in our military. look around the world. other major powers are rapidly adding to the military capabilities. some with intentions very different than our own. the regime in tehran is closer to developing nuclear weapons. the threat of radical islamist terrorism persists. weapons of mass destruction proliferation. we are still at war and still have uniformed men and women in, for it. all of this and more is going on and yet the president has chosen this moment for wholesale reductions in -- with the biggest announcement in the last state of the union address on improving our military was that the pentagon will start using more clean energy, you know it is time for a change. [applause] we are not the first people to observe the spirit it is reported that bob gates, the first secretary of defense, i just another security problem. after the white house leaked secret operational details of the osama bin laden raid to reporters, secretary gates told the obama team to shut up. he added a colorful word for emphasis. lives are at stake but the administration failed to change its ways. more top-secret operations were leaked, even some of involving covert actions in iran. this is a national security crisis. democrat senator dianne feinstein asked today, chairman of the senate intelligence committee, said, i think the white house has to understand that some of it is coming from them. this conduct betrays our national interest. it compromises our men and women and it demands a full and prompt investigation by special counsel with explanation and consequence. obama appointees who are accountable to the attorney- general should not be responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the white house. whoever provided classified information to the media must be exposed, dismissed and punished. the time for stonewalling is over. [applause] it is not enough to say the matter is being looked into and leave it at that. when the issue is the political use of a highly sensitive national security information, it is unacceptable to say we will report our findings after the election who in the white house perpetrated these secrets? these are things americans are entitled to know. the president believes that the buck stops with him, he owes all americans a prompt accounting of the facts. let me be very clear -- these events make the decision we face in november all the more important. what kind of white house would reveal classified material for political gain? i will tell you right now -- mine will not. [applause] the harm that is that when national security secrets are betrayed extends to the trust that allies place in the united states. the operating principle of american foreign-policy has been to work with our allies to deter aggression before it breaks out into conflict. that policy depends on nurturing our alliances and standing up for our values. if the president moves in the opposite direction. it began with the abandonment of our friends in poland. they were told at the last hour that the agreement was off. as part of their policy. missile defenses were sacrificed as a unilateral concession to the russian government. it that gesture was designed to inspire good will from russia, it missed the mark. the russian government defended the dictator in damascus. i can only guess what putin makes of the obama administration. he got a congratulatory call from the oval office spirit then that exchange picked up by a microphone that president obama did not know was on. he told putin to give him space. this is my last election, he said. after this, i will have more flexibility. why is that flexibility with russian leaders is more important to him than transparency for the american people? [applause] now the president did have a moment of candor the other day. he said the actions of venezuelan dictator hugo chavez have not had a serious national security impact on us. in my view, inviting hezbollah into our hemisphere is severe, serious and a threat. i will recognize it as such. [applause] but at least he was being consistent. this is the president who faltered when the iranian people were looking for support in their struggle against the ayatollah. that uprising was treated as an inconvenient problem for the president of policy engagement instead of a moral opportunity. that misjudgment should never be -- -- be repeated. when unarmed men and women find the courage to stand against their oppressors, they should hear the voice of an american president affirming their right to be free. i will be leaving this evening on a trip abroad that will take me to england and elsewhere. i will tell you what i think of this administration's treatment of one of our finest friends. president obama is fond of lecturing israel's leaders. he is undermine their position which was tough enough as it was. even at the united nations to the applause of israel's enemies, his boat as if our closest ally was a problem. the people of israel deserve better. the chorus of accusations and threats at the united nations should never again include the voice of the president of the united states. [applause] their values and causes that depend on american strength and clarity of our purpose and the reliability of our commitments. there is work that only america and our allies can do. hostile powers that only we can deter and challenges that only we can overcome. i will have a solemn duty as commander in chief to our men and women in uniform. the troops, their families and the american people -- give them a clear explanation of our commitments. i have been critical of the decision to withdraw search troops during the fighting season against it by some commanders on the ground. the president would have you believe that anyone who is disagreeing with his decision is arguing for endless war. it is a politically time to retreat. as president, michael in -- my goal in afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to afghan security forces by the end of 2014. i will solicit the best advice of our military commanders and affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects but the security of the nation and safety of our troops. [applause] we face another challenge in a rising china. china too often disregards the rights of its people. it is selected in the freedoms it allows and with its one child policy, it can be ruthless in crushing the freedoms it denies. in trading with america, it commits a flagrant hypocrisy patent violations. it manipulates its currency to maintain an unfair advantage. it is our mutual interest for china to be a partner for a stable and secure world. we welcome its participation in trade but the cheating must be brought to a stop. the president has not done it and will not do it and i will. [applause] we will need that clarity of purpose and result in the middle east. america cannot be neutral in the outcome there. we have to clearly stand for the values that represented economic opportunity and human- rights and we must stand against the extension of iranian influence. egypt is at the center of this drama. it has the power to tip the balance in the arab world toward freedom. as president, i will work with partner nations deeper place conditions on their assistance. unifying our common purpose doubled foster the development of a government that represents all egyptians, maintains peace with israel. the united states is willing to help egypt support peace and prosperity but will not be a composite in oppression. -- be complicit in oppresion. there is no greater danger in the world today than the prospect of ayatollahs in tehran possess a nuclear weapons capacity. with all the talks and assurances, can anyone say we are further from this danger now than we were four years ago? the same ayatollahs who chanted "death to america" will not be talked out of their contempt for our country. sanctions must be enforced without exception, cutting off the sources of wealth. negotiations must secure full access for inspections. as it is, the iranian regime claims the right to enrich nuclear material for supposedly peaceful purposes. this claim is discredited by years of deception. a clear line has to be drawn. there must be a full suspension of any enrichment whatsoever. period. [applause] and at every turn, iran must know that the united states and our allies stand as one in these critical objectives. only in this way can be successfully counter the threat that iran represents to us in the world. i pledge to you and all americans that if i become commander in chief, i will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region and prevent the worst from happening while there is still time. it is a mistake to think that firmness in american foreign policy can only bring tension or conflict. the surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision. [applause] in the end, it is resolved that moves events in our direction and strength that keeps the peace. i will not surrender america's leadership in the world. we must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolved in our minds. it is very simple. if you do not want america to be the strongest nation on earth, i am not your president. but with his cuts to the military, you have that president today. this century began with terror, war, economic calamity. it is our duty to move towards freedom, peace and prosperity. the people here today cannot hold the torch as high as they have in the past. they are getting older. it is our turn. we have to seize that torch they carried with such great sacrifice. it is an eternal torch of decency and freedom and hope. it is not our torch alone but america's duty and honor to hold it high enough so the whole world can see it. i love america, i love what america represents. i love the sacrifice america has made for freedoms throughout the world. this is a critical time for our nation, a time of choice. we will have another american century with freedom blossoming and prosperity for all our citizens here because i believe in america. i believe in you. i salute you. together we will make sure we keep america the whole of the earth. thank you so very much and god bless the vfw and the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> today, it tim died near is before the house financial services committee -- tim geithner is before the house financial services committee. live at 9:30 eastern on c-span3. richard cordray responded to lawmakers on tuesday regarding concerns with the rulemaking process and consumer credit access. he says the goal is consumer protection and access to credit for those that need it. he testified for two hours before the subcommittee on financial services. >> the subcommittee on the financial-services and bailout of private and public programs. our hearing is entitled credit crunch, restricting consumer access to credit. we have two panels today. the first is richard cordray. and then in the second panel we have four individuals that are from think tanks and the private sector. the tradition of this subcommittee is to begin with the mission statement. we exist to secured two principles. americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent and they deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them. and our duty is to protect these rights. our responsibility as taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their governments. we will work tirelessly with watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is the mission statement of the oversight reform committee. i will now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement for four minutes. on the hearing subcommittee will examine how regulatory actions can restrict access to credit as well as a metrics and tools employed to consider the availability of credit in the course of its work. the american people deserve to know regulations that discourage and disciplined financial fraud without compromising access to credit for consumers and small businesses. as our country continues to exhibit slow but -- sluggish growth and the possibility of slipping into recession, it has become more important than ever to ensure that our markets in compass adequate liquidity and credit for american businesses and families. mr. cordray has already resulted in a lawsuit that, if successful, could invalidate all of the actions since his appointment. such legal wrangling, as well as regulatory actions creates uncertainty and that may restrict credit as financial institutions raise for full implementation of dodd-frank. we may disagree on policy but he has a strong reputation. the appointment and the process of appointment raises concern outside of that. testimony is not to alleviate much of the concern about uncertainty as he and the bureau have been vague and continue to be a vague about the definition of "abusive practices" by market participants. since he last met, we have permed -- proposed increasing the regulatory burning -- regulatory burden without a thorough and robust cost-benefit analysis. the consideration of the qualified mortgage rule has been met with dismay from lenders and experts who believe the rule could make consumer borrowing more expensive. that is a great concern. many also believe that the rule could make a harder for consumers to prepare mortgage options and reduce consumer choice. that is a major concern as well. i would urge mr. cordray to consider these consequences as the housing market is beginning to see daylight. the finalized regulate transfers from consumers in the united states has already resulted in a reduction of services for consumers. the state bank of texas has stopped offering the service and estimates that 3000-four thousand other community banks will accept the agreement and transfer business -- exit the transfer business because of the rule. the bureau should join other regulators that have taken steps to improve their cost-benefit analysis. we have undertaken efforts to implement cost-benefit analysis of the likely economic consequences of new regulations. the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 459, the federal reserve transparency act, directs the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the federal reserve. the dodd-frank legislation mandated the g.a.o. audit of the fed, but that audit issued by the government accountability office in july of 2011, focused solely on the issues concerning emergency credit facility. g.a.o. remains restricted under current law from conducting a broader audit of the fed that includes, for instance, a review of the fed's monetary policy operations and its agreements with foreign governments and central banks. the bill remedies this statutory permitting g.a.o. -- permitting g.a.o. the investigative arm of congress to conduct a nonpartisan audit that will review all of these transactions. the findings of the audit are to be reported to congress. in particular, it is appropriate that we consider this legislation at this time. while congress should not manage or micromanage details of monetary policy, it needs to be able to conduct oversight of the fed. the fed was created by congress to be the central bank, independent of the influence of the u.s. treasury. it has never and was never intended to in fact be independent of congress or independent of the american people. in recent years the fed's extraordinary interventions into the economy's fiscal market has led some to call into question its independence. we do not ask for an audit for that reason. we ask for an audit because the american people ultimately must be able to hold the fed accountable and to do so they must know at least in retrospect what the fed has done over these many years that it has been without an audit. that is why i support h.r. 459, a bipartisan bill with mine and 273 other co-sponsors. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, when the sponsor of the bill talk about auditing the federal reserve, they don't mean a traditional audit. an outside independent accounting firm already audits the federal reserve's annual statements and g.a.o. is already empowered to review the annual statements and a broad range of its functions. in fact, the wall street reform legislation passed last congress, there is transparency and accountability when it comes to the federal reserve's finances and operations. however, this bill would instead jeopardize the fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to g.a.o. audit. the fed, like every other major central bank in the world, is independent, and congress has rightly insulated the fed from short-term political pressures. i agree with chairman bernanke that congressional review of the fed's monetary policy decisions would be a, quote, nightmarish scenario, especially judging the track record of intervening in the courts and other areas. we don't have to look further than the congress unnecessarily taking the country to the brink of default last summer in a display of politics. all of us, mr. speaker, want transparency. all of us here want to make sure that the federal reserve is working to carry out the economic goals of the american people, which are maximum employment and price stability, but that's not what this bill is about. this bill increases the likelihood that the fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy. i urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and preserve the independence of the fed so it can keep our currency stable and cultivate the best conditions for our economy to grow and create jobs. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we in congress have shown too frequently our inability in a political environment to make tough choices. that failure has led us in part to where we are today. i urge my colleagues to defeat this unwarranted, unjustified and dangerous legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's now my honor to yield time to the author of this bill, the gentleman from texas, the man who understands that not knowing should never be an answer, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. issa: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise obviously in strong support of this legislation. i don't know how anybody could be against transparency and they want secrecy, especially when the secrecy is to protect individuals who deal in trillions of dollars, much bigger than what the congress does, and these trillions of dollars bail out all the wealthy , rich people, the banks and the big corporations, international, overseas banks, bailing out europe, dealing with central banks around europe, around europe, and different places. and so say that we should have secrecy and say that it's political to have transparency, well, it's very political when you have a federal reserve that can bail out one company and not another company. that's pretty political. i know when people talk about independence and having this privacy of the central bank, it means they want secrecy and secrecy is not good. we should have privacy for the individual, but we should have openness of government all the time. and we drifted a long way from that. the billie essentially removes the -- the bill essentially removes the prohibition against a full audit. to audit we should know what kind of transactions are we should know about the deals that they made -- are. we should know about the deals they made when they were fixing the price of libor. these are the kind of things that were going on for years and we have no access to. so congress has this responsibility. we are reneging on our responsibility, we have the responsibility and we have not done it. so it is up to us to reassert ourselves. the constitution's very clear who has the responsibility. but the law conflicts with the constitution. the law comes along and says the congress can't do it. well, you can't change the constitution, prohibit the congress from finding out what's going on by writing a law. and this is what has happened. so it is time that we repeal this prohibition against a full audit of the federal reserve. we deserve it. the american people deserve it. the american people know about it and understand it and that's what they're asking for. they're sick and tired of what happened in the bailo and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a bad idea and i'm somewhat confused. by the way, we will be debating tomorrow a bill which restricts rule making and exempts the federal reserve as i read it. so we're kind of on again, off again about the federal reserve. it seems to me what we're talking about is taking some thick punches at the federal reserve but not doing anything serious. my republican colleagues brought up a reconciliation bill that was going to subject the consumer bureau to appropriations. so i offered an amendment to subject the federal reserve to appropriations. that was voted down. so we're not going to restrict their rulemaking, we're not going to subject them to appropriations, even though that's being done elsewhere, we're going to audit them. which is a way to look tough without reallyeing tough. does the gentleman want me to yield? mr. paul: i would. mr. frank: i yield. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. would you suggest that we should do both of those -- mr. frank: no. i will take back my time and say we should do none of them. i have a consistent position. i don't think we should do any of them. what i'm saying is people who get up there and beat their chest about how tough they are and they're not afraid of the federal reserve, but it exempt it from the great rule making bill and subject the consumer bureau, that terrible threat to the well-being of americans through the appropriations process, but let the federal reserve, which spends about $1 -- 150 times as much go free, i am inclined to doubt their seriousness. not their purity. that would be a violation of the rules. but their seriousness. this is a way to shake your fist at that big bad fed and it's not a good way. we hear a lot about uncertainty. remember, the federal reserve is now subject to a complete openness about all of its transactions with private companies. we did that last year. the gentleman from texas had a major role in that. when the federal reserve deals with any other institution we know what it does. we don't know it necessarily the same day. there were predictions about what terrible things were going to happen when the federal reserve did this and that and they haven't come true. maybe they will someday. but we will know it. this makes this exception, it says that we will audit the decisions about monetary policy. it says that members who vote on what the interest rates should be will now be audited. they will be subject to being quized about why they did that. now, i will tell my democrat friends, i understand that one part of this problem is the objection on the part of the republican party to the fact that our federal reserve, unusual among central banks, has a dual mandate. they are charged under a statute to be concerned about inflation and about unemployment. now, the republicans have an agenda that, they keep it on low keep keystone x.l. until next year, but they would -- keep it on low key until next year, but they would like to strip that part of the mandate. they would like the federal reserve to be only involved with inflation. they don't like that they deal with unemployment. this is a way, if it ever were to become law, no one thinks it is. look how tough we are, we're going to wave our fist at the fed. but it would be way to kind of put pressure on members of the open market committee and see what -- are you worried about unemployment when you did this? that's the audit. in this has nothing to do with how they spend their money. it has nothing to do with whom they contract. that's what people usually think about audit. it has nothing to do with the way in which -- whether they're efficient or not. it's an ideological agenda by a group of people who didn't like what the federal reserve was doing, under by the way george bush, there was reference to the bailouts which of course were under the bush administration. one of the things we did in the bill two years ago, all my republican colleagues voted against the bill, was to take away from the federal reserve the power they used under president bush to give -- lend $85 billion to a.i.g. we rescinded that. i don't think mr. bernanke, a bush appointee, was doing the wrong thing necessarily. but we took back that power. so this is probably a show because on the two serious efforts to curtail the fed's powers, my republican colleagues aren't there. but secondly, and as i said, i'm consistent, i don't think we should do any of these things. i think what we did with regard to openness makes sense. i'm not pretending to be tough when i'm not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. frank: but what it will do is destabilize. we have worries about expectations. there is a fear that we will be too inflationary or that we won't grow enough. people on wall street are not as sophisticated as some people think. they're not even sophisticated about their own business, as we know. they will read this and take it more seriously than the members here do. and it will destabilize some of the financial system. they will see it as political interference, not with the contracting procedures, not with the budget, not with how many cards they have, but with how they decide on interest rates. and the perception that the congress is going to politicize the way in which interest rates are set will in itself have a destabilizing effect. and as i said, nobody here thinks this is ever going to become law. but there is this fear on the part of others who don't know that that will translate into precisely the kind of uncertainty, precisely the kind of unsettling on investment that my republican colleagues pretend to fear and it will also send them the message, stop worrying about unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: as i introduce my good friend and leader on this issue, mr. chaffetz, i might note that when the word republican and democrat are used in this hall, hopefully when there's 45 democratic members on this bill as co-sponsors, we'd recognize this is a bipartisan bill. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. and i thank the chairman. i also want to appreciate and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless pursuit of this openness and transparency. without his leadership we wouldn't be at this point today. and i applaud him and thank him for that. some would say that the fed is already audited but there are some key points where it is not. these include transactions with foreign central banks, discussion and actions on monetary policy, and transactions made under the direction of the federal open market committee. if we're truly about openness and transparency in this nation, which dishes -- distinguishes above and beyond so many others, we deserve and need to know this information. we need also understand the imperative that is before us because the freshman reserve balance sheet has exploded in recent years. since 2008 it has literally tripled. gone from $908 billion on its balance sheet to over $2.8 trillion. nearly a 33% annualized increase since january of 2008. the federal reserve ownership of treasuries has also increased substantially in recent years. having more than doubled from january of 2008 to january of 2012. where it went from $741 billion to $1.66 trillion. let's understand also that in fiscal year 2011 the federal reserve purchased 76% of new treasuries. certainly this distribute american people and this congress deserves more openness, transparency and at the very least an audit. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation and again congratulate dr. paul on continued hope for his pursuit of this issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield mrs. maloney two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: this is an absolute terrible idea. although i am in total agreement with mr. paul that transparency is a virtue, i also believe that the federal reserve must be free of any political influence. and i'm afraid that this bill opens the door for precisely that to happen. and i don't believe that there's any one -- anyone in this chamber that thinks that what the process needs is more politics. make no mistake, i agrie degree that maximum transparency is necessary and desirable and that is precisely why we included numerous transparency requirements in the financial reform bill as well as numerous audit requirements. we authorized the g.a.o. to audit the fed's emergency lending facility. we authorized the g.a.o. to ought audit any special facility created within the fed. and we required the fed to issue an assessment two years after institutions were granted access to the fed's discount window. we crafted those measures and more in a way that ensures transparency, but still preserves the independence of the federal reserve in its decision making process, in the critical area of monetary policy. but this bill, as it now stands, would provide information without a proper context. and that could have unintended consequences and have totally unwarranted effects on consumer confidence in our financial institutions. if the individual numbers of the open markets committee know that each one of their decisions are subject to potential political pressure, it would significantly alter that decision making process. an open door to the federal open markets committee would invite political pressures and having decisions that are driven by politician and polling data is not -- politics and polling data is not the path to sound monetary policy. decisions about monetary policy should never be based on the raw political needs of the moment but instead should always be based strictly on objective economic contributions and guided by the twin mandates of full employment. the unintended consequences of this bill would be to open the federal reserve to political influence and that would have a negative impact on the fed's independence and its ability to produce sound economic policy. i urge a strong bipartisan no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the constitution grants us the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and we've delegated this to the fed. unfortunately we've ta tied our hands behind our back with respect to seeing what they're doing and it's our duty to conduct oversight. a moment ago mr. frank said the audit was just fist pounding and chest pounding. i disagree. it's the first step, it's us doing our homework to determine what needs to be done to reform the fed. chairman bernanke said this bill would be a nightmare scenario of political meddling in monetary affairs. i disagree. i think the current situation is a nightmare scenario in unaccountable government. as justice bran dies said, sunshine is always the best disinfectant. as a member of the oversight and government reform committee, we demand transparency from agencies like the g.s.a., the t.s.a., and other fed agencies. i join my friend and neighbor in congress, dr. paul, in demanding for the american people that sunshine be shined into the fed and this audit be conducted. i urge my colleagues to support this bill because the american people have a right to know. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman from massachusetts, one minute, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: to illustrate the misconceptions about this bill, let's refer to what the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, had to say. he said 76% of the purchases of this and that -- well, if this was so nontransparent, i don't know how he knows that. he doesn't have a subpoena. but the fact is, yes, he knows that, because of the transparency we built in. but the more important, the details, the specifics of every one of those transactions is already public. this isn't about those transactions and with about whom were done and under what time period. it's about the motives of the people setting monetary policy. let me address the constitution. yes, it is true that the constitution gives us the power to do this. the constitution gives us a lot of power. it gives us power to declare war on canada. it declares -- gives us the power to do a lot of things. wise people pick and choose which powers they use, but this is not about getting more information about their transactions or that is out there. this is an effort to give politicses, a wonderful group of people of which i am one, more direct involvement on the setting of interest rates than is good for the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my honor to recognize for one minute the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. amash: i want to thank chairman issa and congratulate dr. ron paul for his tireless work on this issue for many decades. mr. speaker, what is the federal reserve? i think even many members of this body couldn't answer that question, and yet congress has delegated its constitutional authority to this committee of bankers and presidential appointees. congress has given so much power while knowing so little. the central bank, we trust the federal reserve for managing inflation. that means the fed can change the value of americans' life savings, their mortgages. lately the fed has taken on the role of, quote, lender of last resort. it has promised billions of dollars to the country's largest financial institutions. when investors wouldn't buy mortgages, the fed did. when creditors became worry of congress' spending bin g, the fed stepped in. -- binge, the fed stepped it. the government's accountants understandably were outraged saying they couldn't, quote, satisfactorily audit the federal reserve system without the authority of examining the fed's largest assets. congress should be weary of all types of central planning. we should be especially vigilant against unaccountable groups that profoundly affect americans' lives and liberty. pass this bill and let's audit the fed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mudd. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman, and let me say, first, that this bill is not about sunshine. it's not about transparency. it is about dissatisfaction that some individuals have with the man indicate that congress has given -- mandate that congress has given to the federal reserve. the gentleman who just spoke is absolutely right. they're supposed to deal with inflation. that's what we told them to do in their mandate. they're supposed to deal with unemployment. that's what we told them to do in the mandate we gave them. and some people over there are dissatisfied with the fact that they don't want them to deal with unemployment. they don't want them to try to adjust and make changes that will be beneficial to our economy. and if they don't want that, they ought to just introduce a bill that repeals the mandate that we gave to them. don't come and say we're talking about sunshine and transparency. every time i turn on the television now i hear the federal reserve, chairman bernanke, and members of the federal reserve talking about how the economy is going. that is not lack of sunshine and lack of information. we -- i thought we had dealt with this when i was the ranking member of the subcommittee and mr. paul was the chairman -- or i was the chairman and he was the ranking member. mr. paul's problem is he doesn't like the federal reserve. he's in favor of doing away with the federal reserve. and if -- and that's an honest position, but don't come in and try to cloak it in the guise of this agency is not transparent or it lacks sunshine. if you don't like the mandate that they have, then have the guts to stand up and introduce a bill that says we're doing away with the federal reserve and -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. watt: if you think we're in trouble now, you get the politics and the congress involved in transactions with foreign governments and decisions about how we get ourselves out of this unemployment situation. if we have some answers about how to get out of unemployment, i would assume we would come forward with them and nobody on this floor, this congress has done nothing to take out the ploun -- unemployment bill, so i'm glad we have the federal reserve over there at least trying to figuring out how to make some adjustments in our economy that will deal with unemployment. and the last thing i want is for this congress to be second guessing or an auditor that is not elected by anybody to be second guessing the decisions of the people who are on the federal reserve. an auditor might be a good accountant. he can count, but i want somebody on the federal reserve and hopefully it would be nice to have some people in congress who can make some decisions about how to deal with unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, the rules of the house prohibits going after someone's motivation and i'm very concerned that a bill that in a substantially similar form was placed into dodd-frank by then chairman barney frank is now being characterized as somehow ill-intended and mischievous activity by the proponents. i would trust that's not the intent of the speakers on behalf of that side of the aisle about this bipartisan bill that is virtually identical to the language that barney frank put into dodd-frank. i'd yield. mr. watt: i just want to be clear that mr. frank and i voted against the bill that you are talking about. so don't try to make it sound like me and mr. frank's bill. we voted against the bill. this is ron paul's bill, and we thought it was a terrible idea then and we -- mr. issa: reclaiming my time. mr. watt: thinks it's terrible now. mr. issa: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from texas. mr. paul: did you vote against dodd-frank? because it was in dodd-frank. it wasn't a separate bill. maybe on a separate vote you might have but it was in dodd-frank. mr. issa: i now recognize the gentleman from montana for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. rehberg: tomorrow the house of representatives will vote to pull back the secretive curtain the federal reserve. the american people have a right to know. it's an important step in openness in government transparency that's long overdue. just a few years ago the senate rejected an effort to add the strong audit language to the dodd-frank bill, but times are changing. our economy struggles and job creation lags. it's more important than ever to look under the hood of the federal reserve. we need to find out exactly what they are doing and why. that way we can determine if the fed is actually hurting our economy and discouraging job growth. in a drauks, no government body -- democracy, in government body should be allowed to hide behind a curtain of secrecy. that's why i stand behind this legislation. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the chair will observe a moment of silent. will all present please rise in onans of a moment of silence. -- in observance of a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, debate continues on h.r. 459. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from massachusetts 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i'm glad that the committee on government oversight is not the one that started. in fact, there was a motion to include language like this offered to the financial reform bill. i voted no, as did mr. watt. it wasn't included in the bill. it's true i voted for the bill. of course, the gentleman from texas voted against the bill. if you vote for the whole bill as taken on how you feel he was against it. when it went to conference it was not in the senate bill which was the text of the conference so we it did not come up and -- so it did not come up and no republican conferee offered it as an amendment. that is in the conference that language which i and the gentleman from north carolina voted against was not offered by any member of the conference, democrat or republican. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: history records that democrats broadly voted for it when it was voted out of this body. nothing more needs to be said. with that i recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman from california for the time, and i want to commend the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, for his excellent work on this issue. recently i had a constituent say to me in a town hall meeting they thought it was time for congress to start putting some mandates on the federal government. they're tired of government mandates on them. why don't we mandate, why don't we hold them accountable? this is a piece of legislation that does exactly that. it requires the g.a.o. to conduct a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and of the federal reserve bank by the comptroller general before the end of the year. that is significant. a timeline to do a job, to be held accountable to the people of this great nation for how they spend their time, their money, the decisions they make that affect us. it is imperative that we get this economy back on track. the actions that we will vote on today are part of that. having a federal reserve that is accountable, accountable to our constituents, accountable to the people of this nation. i commend the gentleman for a move toward transparency and accountability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 459 which passed out of the oversight committee without even a single hearing and without testimony from any federal reserve officials. let me be clear, the government accountability office has had the authority to audit the federal reserve's books for three decades. in 2010, the dodd-frank act expanded the types of audits g.a.o. conducts of the federal reserve as well as the data the fed must disclose to the dub. dodd-frank required g.a.o. to audit the emergency financial assistance provided during the financial crisis. the act also opens discount window operations and open market operations to audit so g.a.o. can assess the operational integrity, collateral policies, fairness, use of third-party contractors. and dodd-frank requires the federal reserve to release information regarding borrowers and counterparties participating in discount lending programs and open market operations. mr. speaker, as a conferee who helped craft the final dodd-frank legislation, i supported all of these provisions. i believe other areas of the federal reserve's operations are also right for audit. during the committee's consideration of this legislation, i offered an amendment that would require g.a.o. to perform an audit of the independent foreclosure re views. 14 mortgage servicers have been required to establish a process under which borrowers can request an independent review of their loan histories. but at the end of may, only 200,000 out of 4.4 million borrowers have requested an independent review of their foreclosure cases. we need to understand whether the design of the program is limited to a number of borrowers who sought reviews of their cases. further, it is unclear how the types and amounts of remediation are being determined. this is precisely the type of issue that should be reviewed by the g.a.o. the public has the right and the congress has a responsibility to know and understand the transactions and enforcement transactions undertake bin the nation's central bank. however when congress established the fed in 1913 it understood that independence from political interference was critical to the bank's ability to fulfill its monetary policy responsibilities. the dodd-frank act was carefully crafted to expand transparency while preserving the protections that ensured the independence of the federal reserve's internal deliberations on monetary policy matters. the board of governors of the federal reserve must be able to pursue the policies it considers most response to have our nation's current economic conditions and most likely to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. we should not allow g.a.o. examinations to be the backdoor through which politics intrudes on monetary policy. which is what this legislation will allow. opening the federal reserve's internal policy deliberations to g.a.o. review would influence how such deliberations are conducted and potentially the policies that are chosen best -- thus degrading the fed's independence. last week chairman of the federal reserve, mr. bernanke, described the potential impact of this bill to the financial services committee and said, and i quote, the nightmare scenario i have is one in which some future fed chairman would decide to raise the federal funds rate by 25 basis points and somebody would say, i don't like that decision, i want the g.a.o. to go in and get all the resorts -- records, get all the transcripts, get all the preparetory materials and give us an independent opinion whether or not that was the right decision. i share chairman bernanke's concern. for that reason during the markup of this legislation in the oversight committee, i offered an amendment that would have retained the protections for the board of governors in term of monetary policy deliberations to ensure that the audit required by this legislation did not intrude on the federal reserve's independence. i continue to believe this provision is needed to ensure this bill does not inhibit the ability of the federal reserve to implement monetary policies to strengthen our nation's economy as it has done repeatedly throughout the recent financial cry sills. the speaker pro tempore: -- crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve his time? mr. cummings: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 91 fourts minutes remain -- -- 9 1/4 minute remaining. mr. issa: thank you. i now yield to the gentlelady from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank dr. paul for his leadership on this very important issue. mr. speaker, the federal reserve lent out $16 trillion during the fiscal crisis. that's larger than the entire u.s. economy or worse our federal debt. trillions of taxpayer dollars and we have very little understanding of where it went. congress holds the purse. but we have no oversight over how the fed manages the funds. this is why i've co-sponsored a bipartisan effort to audit the fed in full. it's our responsibility. current monetary policy audits of the fed are insufficient. most fed operations consist of transactions with foreign central banks and yet they are exempt from review. when corruption is suspected, a common refrain is, follow the money. with the historic sovereign debt crisis brewing in europe, we must look closely at our own balance sheet. we must follow the money. as a c.p.a. i know we need more transparency in washington. it should start with the federal reserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to mr. kucinich one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article about the fed's policy model sacrifices its maximum employment mandate and targets 5% to 6% unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this debate an article from bloomberg news that talks about how secret fed loans gave banks billions that were undisclosed to congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: this is all about disclosure and accountability. you know, the fed's not some kind of hocus pocus black box operation. the fed essentially supplants the constitutional mandate in article 1, section 8, that belongs to the congress of the united states. let's look at some recent history here. 2008, subprime meltdown, collateralized debt obligation, go back for mortgage-backed securities. people losing their homes. the fed looked the other way. and we're saying, oh, don't go into the fed, it would be political. yes, it's political. we have unemployment because of politics. we have people losing their homes because of politics. we have banks getting uncalculated amounts of money from the federal reserve and we don't even know about it. meanwhile people can't get a loan to keep their home or keep their business. audit the fed, you bet we should audit the fed. it's time that congress stood for its constitutional role. article 1, section 8, power to create money. it's time we stood up for america's 99%. it's time that we stood up to the federal reserve that right now acts like it's some kind of high exalted priesthood, unaccountable in a democracy. let's change that by voting for the paul bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time i would yield one minute to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for one minute. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, before the financial crisis the fed's lending to the financial system was minimal and monetary policy was limited. but since 2008 they've tripled their balance sheet and transacted nearly $16 trillion in loans. clearly congress has delegated monetary policy to the fed and i for one am not advocating that we abolish the fed. but congress retains oversight responsibility and congress should insist on an accurate accounting of the fed so members of congress can better understand monetary policy. our colleague ron paul was instrumental in getting an audit of the fed's emergency activities during the financial crisis. but restrictions remain in place on examining monetary policy actions such as quantitative easing and assisting failing banks in europe. when the fed's cumulative lending hits the size and scope to be greater than the entire g.d.p. of the united states, it's past time for congress to insist on transparency. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from maryland continue to reserve? mr. cummings: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it appears as though we agree on certain things. we agree that some transparency is required. we certainly agree on a bipartisan basis that what the g.a.o. did under dodd-frank at a minimum was a good thing. i think there's no question, my colleague who was here earlier, mr. frank, certainly would agree to the numbers. the expansion of the fed in that period that mrs. lummis talked about in 2008 to now. i think we would all agree the federal reserve is the people's bank. it is broadly owned by 316 or 320 million americans. i served on the board of a public company, one that i founded. i understand that if you have more than 500 stockholders, you have an obligation to considerable disclosure. although the fed is audited to see whether basically some numbers are correct or not on a limited basis, the truth is the federal reserve is not open and transparent, not even years after they make decisions. i think the american people have a piercing question right now, one that is not the question that dr. paul was asking when he first wanted to audit the fed. the question is, will we be like greece? will we be like germany? will we be like the trauma that's sweeping over the european union? do we in fact know the true numbers? do we know the extent of the leverage and the policies and the accuracy and the knowledge of the federal reserve? i think calmly we have to ask that question. do we know what we need to know or are we willing to not know in hopes that we won't be political because we don't know? i've been in congress for 12 full years at the end of this term. and i've learned one thing. congress has a tendency to do two things well. nothing at all and overreact. i trust today will be a day in which we're in between. i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: we would do something so that we would know more a year from now than we know today. we would not overreact, we would not want to stifle what the fed has done historically without an awful lot more study. changes to an entity like the central bank should be done thoughtfully and over time. my friend, dr. paul, would like to do more than this bill does. but this minimal effort offered on a bipartisan basis is offered today because we believe the american people have a right to know, an interest to know and a need to know. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4 -- mr. clay: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 45. it has the comptroller general conduct an audit of the federal reserve. since 1982 the g.a.o. has had authority to audit the federal reserve board and banks subject to exception for monetary policy related decisions and activities. in 2009 congress provided authority for the g.a.o. to audit actions by the fed under section 1303 of the federal reserve act, to lend to any single and specific partnership or corporation notwithstanding the generally applicable monetary policy related exceptions. in 2010 the dodd-frank wall street reform act added new audit authorities. in addition g.a.o. has conducted a number of other reviews of federal reserve activitys but we need a full audit and i urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, could i inquire how much time is available? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has all of his time -- all of his time has expired. mr. issa: with that i'll close. mr. speaker, i won't use all of our time. slightly different opinion than the ranking members. i believe regular order has been followed on this bill and followed and then some. this is something that dr. paul has worked on on a bipartisan basis with republican presidents and democratic presidents, with republican congresses and democratic congresses. the support for this, as you saw here today, goes to republicans and democrats, progressives, conservatives, blue dogs. the american people want to know , i don't believe the american people are afraid to know. of course the american people would not be comfortable with interference with the fed, with micromanaging policy decisions, with tearing down the institution. but in fact i think that the 9/11 of the financial market, if you will, the meltdown in 2008 and 2009, $1 trillion nearly in tarp money and countless trillions in expansion of the balance sheet, have taught us one thing. what we don't know can hurt us. now before 9/11 of the financial market, before the meltdown, before the lamen brothers and bear stearns evaporated, we would have thought, well, there's some very smart people on wall street and we'd have been right. but smart people can be wrong. we put very good people on the federal reserve board. we choose very good chairmen. chairman bernanke was a choice of republicans and democrats alike. but ultimately looking over the shoulder by congress, by my committee, by the financial services committee just to ask the question, are those numbers undeniable truths brought down on tabulates or are they in fact open to second guessing after the fact? questioning of whether or not a model works, or whether there is just a small but meaningful opportunity for tenses of trillions of dollars to fall on the backs of the american people if they got it wrong. that's the question the american people asked. and after 2008 it's a question congress must act -- ask. when chairman franks voted for -- frank voted for ron paul's bill, perhaps he didn't want it but he voted for it as did countless democrats. ultimately it was reduced but not eliminated in conference. there was some recognition there needed to be audit. today what we're doing is asking to send to the senate a piece of legislation that more purely and clearly says, i believe the american people have a right to know. perhaps the senate will take up a slightly different version. perhaps it will be truly a one-time audit. perhapses it will be limited. but the american people need to hold us in the house and our counterparts in the senate responsible that we do know what we need to know and that we will never again say we rely on other people to be so smart that we shouldn't look over their shoulder. that's not the america that i grew up in. it's not the clear and transparent america the american people are asking for and with that i urge passage of >> the house will vote on the federal reserve you'd bill on wednesday. live coverage of the house when members return for legislative business at noon eastern. i had to on "washington journal" -- congressman henry cuellar, and then republican scott garrett, a member of the house financial services committee talks about the fight over tax cuts and defense. and later, "washington journal's" spotlight on magazines features nick gillespie, editor-in-chief of reason.com. he'll take your calls about the generation gap between the generations. "washington journal" is live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the brookings institution hosts a discussion today on the presidential candidates' foreign policy agendas. a representative of the obama campaign and the romney campaign will be live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this weekend on "american history tv" -- >> let me begin to open up the discussion by asking this, what exactly is the nature of the clash between macarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from electronics tours in history, truman and macarthur, this johns hopkins professor on the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of the korean war, saturday night at 8:00 eastern and sunday, more from "the contenders," our series to look at key figures who ran for president and lost. this week, illinois governor adlai stevenson. he once said he had a bad case of hereditary politics. his grandfather was vice president under grove cleveland. his great-grandfather was first to suggest abraham lincoln as president, and he ran twice against eisenhower. "the contenders" at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> president obama defended his foreign policy on monday. he wanted to end the iraq war responsibly and wind down the war in afghanistan from. reno, nevada, his remarks are 35 minutes. >> it is now my honor to introduce someone who is no stranger to veteran to the v.f.w. stage. he was born in hawaii, raised with midwestern values, and educated at columbia and harvard. he served in his state senate for eight years before becoming u.s. senator from the prairie state of illinois in 2004. he would cosponsor numerous v.f.w.-supported legislation, like the post-9/11 g.i. bill and traumatic injury insurance supplement for our seriously wounded, iraq, and afghanistan warriors. he would attend the v.f.w. washington off his legislative conference reception and appear on this stage for two years in a row as a candidate for our nation's highest office. then he appeared before us again after he got the job in 2009 when he would exchange diplomatic notes with the russian president to revitalize the u.s.-russia joint commission on p.o.w.-m.i.w.'s and would sign into law another priority, advanced appropriations for the department of veterans affairs. he said he wou take care of veterans, service members, and their families, and he has been true to his word. and mr. president, i would be definitely remiss not to add our profound appreciation for all of the superlative work the first lady and dr. jill biden do for troops, especially their families. thanks to you, mr. president and vice president biden, for these two extraordinary ladies. and now comrades and sisters, distinguished guests, please heartily welcome the 44th president of the united states, barack obama! >> thank you! hello, v.f.w.! thank you so much. please, please, everybody have a seat. commander, thank you for your introduction and your service in vietnam and on behalf of america's veterans. i want to thank your executive director, bob wallace, your next command ir, who i look forward to working with, john hamilton, and to glen, and the entire ladies', ale are you, thank you for your patriotic service to america. i stand before you as our hearts still ache over the tragedy in aurora, colorado. yesterday i was in aurora with families whose loss is hard to imagine. with the wounded who are fighting to recover, with a community and a military base in the midst of their grief. and they told me of the loved ones they lost. here today, it's fitting to recall those who wore our nation's uniforms. staff stgget jesse childress, an air force reservist, 29 years old, a cyberspecialist who loved sports, the kind of guy, said a friend, who would help anybody. petty officer first class john larimer, 27 years old, who like his father and grandfather before him, joined the navy and who is remembered as an outstanding shipmate. rebecca wingo, 32 years old, a veteran of the air force, fluent in chinese, who served as a translator, a mother whose life will be an inspiration to her two little girls. and jon blum from reno, 26 years old, but a veteran of three navy tours whose family and friends will always know that, in that theater, he gave his own life to save another. these young patriots were willing to serve in far away lands, yet they were taken from us here at home. yesterday i conveyed to their families a message on behalf of all americans, we honorable oner your loved ones. we salute their service. and as you summon the strength to carry on and keep bright their legacy, we stand with you as one united american family. veterans of foreign wars, in you i see the same shining values. the virtues that make america great. when our harbor was bombed and fascism was on the march, when the fighting raged in korea and vietnam, when our country was attacked on that clear september morning, when our forces were sent to iraq, you answered your country's call. because you know what americans must always remember. our nation only endures because there are patriots who protect it. in the crucible of battle, you are tested in ways the rest of us will never know. you carry in your hearts the memory of the comrades you lost . for you understand we must honor our fallen heroes, not just on memorial day, but all days. and when an american goes missing or is taken prisoner, we must do everything in our power to bring them home. even after i took off the uniform, you never stopped serving. you took care of each other, fighting for the benefits and care you had earned. you've taken care of the generations that followed, including our newest veterans from iraq and afghanistan. on behalf of all our men and women in uniform, and on behalf of the american people, i want to thank you, vfw. thank you for your outstanding work. of course, some among you -- our vietnam veterans -- didn't always receive that thanks, at least not on time. this past memorial day, i joined some of you at the wall to begin the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war. and it was another chance to say what should have been said all along: you did your duty, and you made us proud. and as this 50th anniversary continues, i'd ask all our vietnam vets to stand, or raise your hand, as we say: thank you and welcome home. and welcome home.

Transcripts For CNN State Of The Union 20120603

fix a $3.6 billion shortfall. it included stripping collective bargaining rights for most public workers and increasing their contributions to their pension and health care plans. the race is seen as a test run of things to come on the national scene pitting republicans and the tea party against democrats and organized labor. it has attracted mega millions from outside the state and lots of attention from party headliners, but as republicans like to note, not all the headliners. >> well, it's more obvious is that the president himself, the current president, is not in town, and that to me speaks volumes, his absence. >> joining me is milwaukee mayor tom barrett, the man who lost to governor scott in the 2010 election and looks to unseat him now in the recall. mr. mayor, thank you for being here this morning. let me start out with you asking whether you have asked the president to come and campaign on your behalf? >> no, because we understand that he's got a lot going on, and this actually started as a grassroots movement here in wisconsin because of governor walker's lack of integrity and his surprise attack on workers in the state. so integrity and a grassroots effort was how this started and it will be on those same two notes, that's how this campaign will end. >> you certainly have certainly the republicans have had more out of state money and more out of state help, but you have had some national figures come in as well from the party and also from the unions who have been fighting governor walker in particular based off this budget, and one of those folks, jer jerry, the president of asme, had this to say about the democratic party. we think there could have been more responsibility, more work on behalf of the national democratic party. we think they could and should have done more. as you look at these next couple of days moving forward, where do you think the momentum is and could you use more from the dnc and from some of these other folks to get in there and try to pull you over the finish line? >> well, candy, i traveled the state yesterday, i'm going to be traveling the state again today and tomorrow. yesterday it was just a phenomenal day. literally hundreds of people all throughout the state, people saying to me they have never seen the level of excitement they're seeing right now, and it's people from wisconsin. it's people who live here, and that's what this should be all about. it should be all about the people in the state of wisconsin because you've got a sitting governor, the only governor in this country who has a legal defense fund, all this outside money. this is wisconsin values versus outside influence. and again i want to be on the side of wisconsin values. >> do you think then that there is no national message in this? that win or lose, you don't see any national implications for november or any tea leaves coming out of this wisconsin race? >> again, scott walker wants to make this a national race because he wants to be on the national stage as the rock star of the far right, as the poster boy of the tea party. that's not what i'm interested in. i'm not going to be the rock star of the far right and frankly on the rock star of the far left. i'm focusing on this state because that's what's important to me. >> i want to talk to you a little bit about recall elections in general. the marquette law school poll, this was about the approval or d disapproval of scott walker and how he's handling his job. that was may 23rd to 36th, so very recently. 51% of those, you know, said, look, we think -- we approve of the job he's doing. 45% disapprove. the recall election itself in general seems to me to encourage in some ways timid leadership. here is a guy who is polling 51% in your state and yet you're trying to recall him because you're unhappy with what he did. >> well, i think it's important to understand the history of wisconsin here. scott walker actually became the milwaukee county executive following a recall that he was one of the leaders of, and as a state legislator, he says he does not remember whether he signed recall petitions against senator kohl and senator feingold. >> how do you feel about them though? >> i think they should be rare. i absolutely -- think should be rare but this is a rare instance. off governor who did not campaign at all about having an attack on workers, on workers in this state, and he came in in a very furtive fashion. he said, and these are his words, he said he was going to be dropping the bomb and he was going to divide and conquer. he set out on a strategy to pit people in this state against each other and he succeeded in pitting people against each other. >> again, it seems to me that if you use a recall election because a governor does something you don't like, you set up the stakes for timid leadership. they're always sort of putting their finger to the wind trying to figure out what people want so they don't get recalled. the president himself has said i need four more years in order to fix what's wrong with the economy and other things, and scott walker, that whole recall thing, began within months of his taking office. that's kind of what i wanted you to address. >> sure. well, it's important again to understand what happened. he said that he was require state employees to pay more towards their health care and their pensions, and quite honestly what happened was they agreed to do that. they agreed to do that. did they want to do it? of course not, but the leadership agreed to do that. this entire episode would have been avoided if he would have said, all right, i campaigned on that, you agree to it, let's move on, but it became clear very, very early that was not all that was going on here. he wanted to go after his political opponents around permanently disarm them. that's what this was all about, taking away their rights. he said it was the first step. and the next step obviously would be to go after people who are in the private sector and people who aren't in unions. so i believe that this is the first step towards taking away workers' rights throughout the state, and that's where the surprise attack came in. he never once mentioned that, but once he came in, he instead of focusing on jobs, which he said he was going to do, he took this road where he went after the rights of workers throughout the state of wisconsin. that's what got people up in arms. >> quickly, mr. mayor -- >> all of this would have been avoided if he would -- >> quickly if i can, are you going to win this thing? jim going to win it. we saw in the last tracking poll two nights ago, this is 800 samples, i was one vote behind. not one percentage vount behind, but one vote behind and we have literally thousands of people on the streets this weekend. so we are very, very positive. >> milwaukee mayor tom barrett, you have got a busy couple days ahead of you so we doubly appreciate your time this morning. >> thank you, candy. we invited governor walker to appear, but we were told his schedule was too tight. now, one state that president obama and mitt romney are fighting hard to win this november is virginia. governor bob mcdonald is here next. uh-oh. [ male announcer ] when diarrhea hits, kaopectate stops it fast. powerful liquid relief speeds to the source. fast. [ male announcer ] stop the uh-oh fast with kaopectate. joining me, virginia governor bob mcdonald. he heads the republican governor's association and you're a man that has been out to wisconsin to try to help governor walker stay in office. about $8.3 million you all have sent out to him to try -- >> about. >> about, but probably a little more by this point. >> yes. >> what do you think is at stake. we just heard from the mayor, the democratic challenger, that he doesn't think this has anything to do with the national scene. does it? >> i think it will, but it's certainly about wisconsin. it's about a governor campaigning saying elect me and i will do certain things to create more jobs and get our fiscal house in order. and this is a guy that's kept his word and i think the voters will reward him for his courage. >> and if he loses, what does it say? >> i'm not planning on that, candy. i think the tracking -- >> you must fear that though a little bit. >> of course, because it's all about the ground game, there's same-day registration in wisconsin which can change the dynamics. scott has worked incredibly hard. here is what at stake. he said we will get a $3.6 billion budget fixed. we will reduce property taxes. >> budget shortfall. >> and create jobs. and that's what he did. and this is about results. it's going to be the same thing with romney and obama. as you put policies in place, were they controversial? yes. does it take guts and leadership to tell people we can't afford to do these things jen more? sure. but he's done it. and now he's getting the results. >> but if they come back a year and a half later and say we don't like these reforms and they reject him, does that not say that you can go too far, that this is one republican who went too far and found himself out of office? >> ask me wednesday. i don't think that's going to happen. >> i'm going to hold you to that then. >> you can do that. this is what's happening in washington as well is people expected results. obama promised a couple years ago, if i don't have this deal done in three years, it's going to be a one-term proposition, meaning on spending, deficit, on debt, on jobs, and he hasn't delivered. that's why i think there will be a change in leadership in washington. people are tired of the rhetoric. >> let me talk to you about the swing state of virginia. >> yeah. >> i want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. it's a success story really. >> you can keep that up for a wile. >> you like this, i understand it. does it not make it difficult for mitt romney, who has the same problem in other swing states to come in and say the economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president because virginia is doing very well under president obama. >> yeah, i don't think it undermines his argument at all for two reasons. one is as well as we've been fortunate to do with the lowest unemployment in the southeast, i tell people, think how much better we'd do if we had president romney. number two, i think that there's something going on with republican governed states. seven out of the ten states that have the lowest unemployment rates, republican governed states. >> do you credit president obama at all for the good fortune virginia has had? >> what would you point to that would lead you to say that that unemployment -- the only thing i can say is he had a nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus, and that was one time spending. did it help news the short run with health care and education? sure. does it help news the long term to cut the unemployment rate, i'd say no but we have done a lot of things. republicans and democrats in virginia doing things i requested on economic development and targeted tax kuts and other things that i think have made a difference. so i'd say republican governors are doing some things that are making a difference and that's why i'm trying to get more of them this year. >> just a tiny bit of credit to the president? >> sure. i think there's national policy that is have had some impact but i can tell you this, if we didn't have all these attacks on virginia's energy industry we'd be in a lot better place. this president on coal, natural gas, nuclear, not letting us drill offshore, the environmental protection agen agency's overburdensome regulations on coal and gas has made it much more difficult for us. >> let me ask you about governor romney's record as governor of massachusetts. >> sure. >> when he -- during his four years there, the state was 47th in job creation. there quas was a net gain in payroll fob of 1%, which is well below the net gain nationwide. spending went up, the size of government went up. what kind of record is that for a republican to run on? >> i'd say it's better than that. he went from 47th down to 30th in job creation by the time he left office. he had a $3.6 billion deficit, too. was able to cut that and left office with a $2 billion rainy day fund. i'd say that's pretty good. >> but in the end, you know, he was 47th throughout that whole four-year period, and he is selling himself as a businessman who knows how to create jobs and yet really didn't do that very well when he was in massachusetts. you see the democrats going after this. what's his defense here? >> well, the numbers i have is it went down to 30th by the time he left office nationwide in job creation. more importantly than that, candy s what he did in the private sector. add democrat legislature. that's a deep blue state and i think managing the fiscal house and trying to create jobs during that time, he had to combat a democratic legislature, but look what he did at bain capital, as executive director of the olympics, over 100,000 new jobs with venture capital. he knows how to create jobs in the private sector. he understands the american dream because he's lived it. i'd say president obama had the kind of record mitt romney did, he'd be talking about it, but he can't run on it. >> two quick questions. donald trump staying on the birther issue seems to me a cynic would look at that and go, well, it helps keep a certain part of the base of the republican party happy. mitt romney has not condemned it. in fact, he campaigned and fund raised alongside donald trump. are you bothered by the kinds -- >> mitt romney and i both agree the president was born in america. it's not where he was born. it's his policies that are the issue in this race. 8% unemployment rate for 40 months, the largest debt in american history at $16 trillion and growing and no plan on debt reduction. that's the issue, not where he was born. >> has the romney campaign asked for any papers in the vp search for you. >> they have asked for my schedule to see where i can help them next. >> sounds like maybe he has. we'll talk to you later. virginia governor, bob mcdonald. amid new signs the recovery may be hitting the brakes. republicans and democrats are pointing fingers. >> instead of another campaign speech, the president might want to engage with democrats and republicans here on capitol hill. >> republicans are risking another deep recession. >> two senators who have reached across the aisle, republican dick lugar and republican mark warner are here next. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. [ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering. those are live pictures of queen elizabeth's diamond jubilee celebration along the thames river. cnn's coverage picks up at 11:00 a.m. eastern. back here on "state of the union" i'm joined by republican senator dick lugar of indiana and democratic senator mark warner of virginia. brought you both together because you both are known for working across the aisle in a time when there hasn't been much of that. i want to play you something that president obama said on friday. >> so my message to congress is, now is not the time to play politics. now is not the time to sit on your hands. the american people expect their leaders to work hard no matter what year it is. >> the president repeatedly chastises congress on the campaign trail for not working and not doing anything about jobs, et cetera, but i hear from republicans publicly, some democrats privately, that the president has not used the power of his office to push some of these ideas that he's out there talking about. has there been too much politics on the white house end of this as well, senator warner? >> well, i didn't get the memo that we were actually supposed to take presidential election years off. you know, if we look around -- >> but has he? >> i think the president has laid out an agenda. >> did he push for it? >> well, i think he has pushed for it. i think there's been particularly in the house an almost knee-jerk reaction that anything the president could be for, they've got to be against. but even if you step back and say where can we find common ground, the senate worked together, we passed a two-year highway bill that would put people to work, give a little predictability. we recently passed a bill bipartisan. senator lugar and i, the overwhelming majority of the senate, to feed up the fda approval process. there are things we can do even in an selection year to get this economy going. >> you hear democrats privately, republicans publicly, this they don't hear from the president. that he hasn't said to congress, pick up the phone, i need you guys to really work on this. have you seen more or less presidential influence in the obama administration than previous administrations? >> in this particular year the president is campaigning for re-election. that's his total preoccupation and he's been criticized for that by some democrats who would say as a matter of fact you ought to be talking about how jobs are going to be created, how, in fact, you have more comprehensive view of the deficit, of the debt, of all of these sorts of things. this has not been something on the president's agenda except broadly. i would agree with mark that essentially members of congress still have tried to pick up in modest ways. we're working on a farm bill, for example, where we have a majority and we're hoping to get that to the floor. this is not the whole thing, but i would say simply there have been congressional initiatives quite apart from the president. >> let me ask you, and i don't mean to bring up a sore subject, but richard murdoch, who defelted you in the republican primary, was on fox news recently and talked about the idea of bipartisanship and here is what he said. >> i have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of democrats coming to the republican point of view. >> we are hearing this this election is going to solve things, that there will be a clear picture after this election of which way the country wants to go, the republican way or the democratic way. does that sound like to you, do you believe that the election is going to desight something or are we fundamentally a divided country that can't seem to get congress to work? >> well, respectfully, i think what mr. myrurdock said is wack. i don't know what constitution he wants to defend. the brilliance of the founding fathers were they set up a slightly dysfunctional government to start with, checks and balances, independent house, independent senate, independent president. you have to work together to find that common ground. that's what dick lugar has been about, that's what a whole lot of senators in both parties have been about and the motion that this election will be so overwhelming for one side or the other that there will be a clear picture and one party is going to be able to rule the roost, i just don't see that happening, and with the rest of the world moving ahead, we've got to find that common ground on particularly i believe that debt and deficit issue. nothing would do more to jump start our economy than to put that type of bipartisan plan in place to get this economy going. >> i want to ask you about the fiscal cliff after we come back. next up, it is about the crisis in syria. is the meter tipping away from military support? >> we consider all contingencies at all time. >> we have been focused on the need to bring about a political transition. >> there's still the potential for there to be a peaceful political resolution. there are a million reasons why. but your erectile dysfunction that could be a question of blood flow. cialis for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. we are back with senators richard lugar of indiana and mark warner of virginia. so the notion that this election will, you know, suddenly make it all clear, which, you know, which party the americans support, i think we all have sort of said this isn't going to happen. so then bhawhat happens to this fiscal cliff? what happens to this $8 billion that will be taken out of the economy at the end of the year in tax increases and spending cuts? how is congress going to deal with that? >> well, essentially the congress leadership has decided not to deal with it until after the election which i think is a mistake fundamentally, but let's say after the election very quickly we have the debt ceiling problem. we have the sequester problem, the money for the armed forces quite apart from the rest of it will be taken away, plus all the end of the bush tax cuts which means tax increases for every american. you can say all of that could be postponed until two months, three months, six months down the trail -- >> romney says if he's elected he'd rather -- >> but that requires congress to come to that conclusion. on whatever the election is there is unlikely to be a 60-vote majority in the senate and unless you have a 60-vote majority and say my way or the highway, you're going to have to deal across the aisle. so it would be better to be doing some of that now, picking up the simpson/bowles language or various other gang of six or 12 or so forth. i would hope that might occur. i think the american people would be more relieved and their thoughts about the congress would be much better. >> i imagine you can agree with that. i want to move you on to syria because i know you have been on -- if you want to say something before that, feel free. but something that mitt romney said recently about the situation in syria. the united states should work with partners to organize and arm syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves. good idea, bad idea? let's start with you. >> i want to address the economic issue still. that the idea that we're going to continue to punt this problem, which would be almost a european approach, we have watched this slow-motion train wreck take place in europe because they have not stepped up. i think there is the will in congress to take the simpson/bowles, the gang of six, to phase in a $5 trillion over ten-year deficit reduction plan that will raise some revenues, reform our entitlement programs. we have to do it. there will be nothing that would do more to jump start our economy and get the $2 trillion in private sector capital off the sidelines investing if we can make those permanent changes. now, in syria, i just came back from egypt and israel, a very dangerous neighborhood at this point. i think we need to continue to ratchet up the pressure on assad to get that regime out. i think it is different from libya though because there's not the kind of unanimity at the united nations or around the arab league to have the kind of military intervention it seems president -- or mr. romney is calling for. >> well, let me read you something. this came from the arab lead secretary-general yesterday who said more audacious steps are needed after the houla massacre in order to end the bloodshed. there's even some urgency coming from the arab league. does that help the u.s. make decisions about should we try to work with folks to get some arms into the syrian opposition that's being brutally crushed? >> it helps all of us, but i would say specifically we ought to work with the turks to set up some zones in turkey's territory guarded by turks that syrians can retreat to, so-called safe zones. we ought to increase the sanctions on the government of syria and the central bank sanctions as well as all others people can cooperate in. economic pressures. try to reinforce the diplomatic train instead of dismissing co-ni annan and the peace people, we ought to strengthen the hand so we get some talks going with the syrian government. the pressure would have to be increased, but i made two suggestions there as to how that might occur. there might be others. >> they don't have to be military pressure of arming. i know you were worried about the prenz of al qaeda and other terrorist groups. >> i'm worried about we don't really know who makes up the syrian opposition. >> the same could be said for labia though. we didn't know who they were either. >> we have seen some of the armed smuggling take place out of libya and into the lie. i think we need to continue to put the pressure on the russians. let's face it, syria is supported dramatically by the russians and we need to move the russians off of that support as well. >> senator lugar, i have less than a minute and i have to ask you, what's next for richard lugar after a long distinguished senate career. you are one of the president's favorite republicans which probably didn't help new your primary race. would you consider if the president is re-elected a position in his administration say in diplomacy or foreign policy? >> i think my role is going to be outside of government. i look forward to opportunities but i'm not going tole think about it for three or four months because essentially i have got work to do for seven months. we've been talking about what we ought to be doing back and forth across the aisle in the senate now to help americans, the people i want to serve. there's where my preoccupation is going to be. >> senator lugar, senator warner, thank you for -- >> we're going to lose a lot when we lose dick lugar. >> a lot of people have said that. >> thank you. up next, a dismal jobs report and what it could mean for the election. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... how did the nba become the hottest league on the planet? by building on the cisco intelligent network they're able to serve up live video, and instant replays, creating fans from berlin to beijing. what can we help you build? nice shot kid. the nba around the world built by the only company that could. cisco. the economy created 69,000 jobs in may, about half of what was predicted. the unemployment rate went up to 8.2%. and inside the overall picture the numbers are especially painful for people whose votes the president counts on. the growth rate of manufacturing jobs declined in may. for hispanics the unemployment rate rose to 11% from 10.3%. it rose as well for african-americans up more than half a percent to 13.6%. the president thinks the numbers should be seen from the vantage point of where we've been. >> we're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the economy is growing again, but it's not growing as fast as we want it to grow. >> but mitt romney says the numbers are about where we are not. >> we should be well into a very robust recovery by now if the president's policies had worked, if he had been able to get america back on track. why, we'd be looking at what happened in europe as being a problem, but certainly not devastating. these numbers are devastating. >> not helpful at all, uncertainty in europe and the end of year fiscal cliff in the u.s. when nearly $8 trillion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to take affect. adding it all up with our panel next. at bank of america, we're lending and investing in communities across the country. from helping to revitalize a neighborhood in brooklyn... financing industries that are creating jobs in boston... providing funding for the expansion of a local business serving a diverse seattle community... and lending to ensure a north texas hospital continues to deliver quality care. because the more we can do in local neighborhoods and communities, the more we can help make opportunity possible. here to talk politics and the latest job numbers mark zandi, wauge columnist stechen moore, and "washington post" political correspondent dan bal z. i was only half kidding when i said analysts need to stop predicting what the job market is going to do. we were told 150,000 and it comes up less than 69,000. it just looks -- that's bad, but isn't it worse if -- since we were expecting twice as many? >> i'm on board with that if you can get me off the hook. >> what happened here? >> two things. one thing, the job market is not as weak as it looks. we have a lot of job growth in the winter, remember, back december, january, february, we got 250,000 jobs per month. so there's some payback and that's what we're seeing right now. we have 100,000 jobs, what is it march, april, may. we're somewhere in between these two numbers, somewhere around 150k. the second reason this is more fundamental, businesses are skittish, they're nervous, they have been through a lot, that great recession. that nightmare still in their psyche. if anything goes off script just a little bit, they stop hiring. it's not that they're laying off, that would be a real problem, i don't think that's happening. they just pause in their hiring. >> you know, stephen, i feel like every time there's some reason, there was a tsunami, there was a warm winter, there was this, does it actually change what's happening? it seems to me there's always some excuse. >> i think it's hard to put any lipstick on this pig. those were really lousy numbers. by the way, also we had a revision downward on the first quarter output numbers, less than 2%, those are kind of miserable numbers. i mean, the one thing i disagree a little bit about mark on, we should be accelerating on job creation. we had this very deep recession when we lost 6 million or 7 million jobs. this is a period when he should have a robust recovery. you should be seeing 400,000, 500,000 a jobs a month and we're nowhere near there. it's a drowning man that's treading water and that isn't good enough. >> we can't forget the severity of what we went through. think back four years ago, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month when the president took office. you just don't forget that as a business person. if anything goes wrong, a tsunami in japan or clearly europe, the fiscal cliff, all those things make people nervous. >> and the reagan era at this stage we were creating 500,000 jobs a month, growing three times faster. i think a lot of this is policy related and policy hmistakes we made in washington. >> so much was written after these numbers. we've had disappointing months before and it was sort of it's a month, don't worry about the month. now it seems to me the analysis has been this is not good news at the white house, it may be a turning point. what's your take? >> i think it was a wake-up call at the white house about the kind of campaign they've been running. we've seen all these distractions about this campaign, the attacks on bain which a number of democrats have been unhappy about, the donald trump birther issue which came back to the fore last week. friday's numbers reminded people of where the country really is and what the issue that most of the voters who are sitting out there trying to decide what to do are really worried about, and i think to some extent it may force both of the candidates to get back onto a message about why are we in this situation and what am i, romney or obama, going to do about it. >> let me ask something mark brought up and ask you all to kind of chime in on this. the president basically said, let's remember where we've been here and, you know, it's going to take us more than overnight to climb out of this pit that he inherited. and romney came back and said, you know what? 40 months isn't overnight, folks. it should be better than this. which is the winning argument? and is that just really the crux of the matter? >> of course, the president is going to say that, you know, this was a terrible crisis and it was a terrible crisis. there's no question about it. he inherited, you're right, an economy where we were losing 700,000 jobs a month but it's also been almost four years. >> 800,000. >> but the point is normally when you have a steep recession and deep recession, usually you boom out of these periods and you have very rapid growth and the problem is i think a lot of americans would say, wait a minute, where is the growth going to be. the problem isn't just that we've got such anemic growth right now in jobs and output, but a lot of economists, mark himself, is saying we're not going to see the rapid growth that americans are expecting. >> you expect this to be pretty yuck, right, through the rest of the year? we're not going to look and go woo-hoo, we've turned a corner. >> europe is a real problem and that could have significant implications. and our own fiscal policy, the fiscal cliff, treasury debt ceiling. remember back last summer, that was significant. that did a lot of damage to the collective psyche and we have another round of that coming up. we have to get past that. i think business people start to engage and start to hire more. >> dan, how is it playing? how are the two arguments playing? one is it should be a lot better than it is right now and the other is, whoo, it was a lot worse. >> it's playing about 50/50. we are seeing a very, very tight election, and given where the president is right now, he's highly vulnerable. we have said this for a long time and i think that there were times when democrats thought, mitt romney is not that strong a candidate, he had some tough times during the primary campaign, and i think a lot of democrats thought the president is going to be okay. i think what happened friday reminded people this is going to be a tight, tight, tight election as we go through the summer. >> i think the economy is in a fundamentally better place than it was a several years ago. we have come a long way. american countries have tremendous profits, margins ever wide, balance sheets -- >> nathey're not using any of i to hire people. >> they are. we have hired more than 4 million people -- >> they're not using enough of it. >> i agree. they've come a long way. the banking system is highly capitalized. they're not lending enough but they're lending more. we're starting to see activity pick up. even households, they've made a lot of progress. we as a nation, our economy is in a much better place fundamentally from where it was. >> i want to give you an amazing statistic that confounds me more than any statistic over the last 30 years. right now you have a ten-year treasury bill at about 1.5% -- >> less than. >> we have 2% to 3% inflation. people are giving the government money, paying them back a negative real interest rate. that's something you almost never see. now, why is that happening? i think because there's so much fear and uncertainty right now out there, people are just going to cook oon. they don't want to invest, and i think one of the things i would have fault president obama on, all of this attack against bane capital, against people getting rich, against wealth, i think it's just a negative thing for the stock market, and, of course, i entirely -- the one thing mark and i disagree with, but the one thing i think we both agree on is this fiscal cliff. the big tax increase is a big, big problem, and president obama should take that off the table. he should say we're not going to do it. >> that 1.5% treasury yield, that is fear. it's fwloebl fear. that means that we are the triple-a credit. if anyone is scared about anything, they come right back to the united states and they buy our treasury bonds. >> does it matter, dan, that we look at the battleground states and we see that their economies in most of them are better than the national economy, so the places where we think the election is going to be decided have actually pretty good looking economy comparatively speaking. does that matter? >> it may matter some, but there's an argument -- take ohio, for example. there is an argument underway in ohio. their unemployment rate is more than the national average. the administration says that's in part because of what we did to save the auto industry, and that auto industry is helping to revive the economy in ohio. the republicans say no. what's really going on is you have a republican governor who has taken on the fiscal issues in the state, so we're going to see that debate in some of these battleground states. >> let me ask you. a moody's electoral mogdz, the only swing state of the five that it looked at that they see moving from the obama column to the romney column is florida. >> right. >> why is that? >> well, florida is still a very good economy. again, unemployment rate is -- house prices still weak. of all the swing states it's workings than it has brooufd least. virginia, taurp us to the governor, that's doing quite well. ohio has had a tough time, but it's improving rapidly wrash ohio, new hampshire doing much better. >> let me get back to the fiscal cliff. let me try to put it in my sort of lamen's terms, and that is that about $8 trillion is about to get taken out of the economy over a course of time in both mandated spending cuts as well as tax rates -- or tax increases when the bush tax cuts go away. how is that -- a, is that right, and, b, how does that get fixed? because everyone says, well, after the election we'll have a clear path, and we all know that after the election we'll have the same path. we'll have a 50-50 split. >> i think it's as likely as anything that it will get fixed by pushed off months or a year. many some way just as congress has been want to do time and time again, tried to delay that moment of reckoning. now, you know, you all know and can articulate better than i the consequences of continuing to do that, but i think that is the inclination of politicians today to try to find the least solution that they can find and delay it. >> the tax issue, which to me is the big one. i think we should do the spending. we need more austerity in government and less austerity in the private sector. what we're talking about is on january 1, 2013 capital gains tax is going up, dividend tax is going up, small business tax is going up. that's one of the reasons there's no investment, and one of the reasons the stock market we haven't even talked about that, that's tumbled partly because capital gains tax are going up next year, and people are selling their stocks. >> you're going to hate this, but i have to look -- >> thank you. come back. you'll get the first word. how about that? >> up next, stories of u.s. military veterans and service members lost in the system. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. or creates another laptop bag or hires another employee, it's not just good for business, it's good for the entire community. at bank of america, we know the impact that local businesses have on communities. that's why we extended $6.4 billion in new credit to small businesses across the country last year. because the more we help them, the more we help make opportunity possible. >> we heard from a lot of you last week after talking about the growing backlog of the v.a. for actions on veterans benefits and the average year-plus wait for discharge of those deemed unfit for service due to a variety of disabilities. unfortunately, waiting in any all of you know too well, including this wife of a 20-year army vet. >> my husband retired, and he keeps hearing that his claim is being processed and the v.a. says it will will be between september and january before his claim will be processed. >> we asked the v.a. about this, and some of the other emails we received. they told us they are aggressively working to transform the delivery of benefits and services to meet its 2015 goal of processing all veterans' claims in less than 125 days with 98% accuracy. those are unfortunately dates without meaning for those who wait now. we also heard stories of those still in the service often languishing in or confused by a bureaucratic or medical morasse. they've been trying to get him dismissed from active service after a traumatic brain injury. >> josh went to see his doctor for a physical before he was going to go to afghanistan, and his doctor told him there was no way that a soldier in his condition was fet for duty. after almost two years of sitting around and waiting, the army told my brother that he would no longer being -- >> med boarded is the term used when doctors are determining if you are fit for duty. in this case the -- we will continue to follow these and other stories and we'll pursue a time for veteran affairs secretary general to join us for a conversation. share your story with us via e-mail state of the union@very nn.com and use lost in the system in the subject line. join us for analysis and web exclusive at cnn the com/sotu, and stay tuned for queen elizabeth's historic jubilee. it starts one hour from now at 11:00 a.m. eastern. reliable sources and the noon version of this show will return next week at our regularly scheduled time. i'm candy crowley in washington. fareed zakaria gps starts right now. this is "gps, the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a great show for you today. we'll start with mitt romney's plans for the american economy. i have an exclusive interview with his senior economic advisor glen hubbard. then, syria. what's next after that massacre of civilians almost 50 children killed? i will ask farwas the noted expert. up next the harvard business school's michael porter. he is the most cited on author on business and economics in the world. he has a new study to talk about. fir, here's my take.

Transcripts For CNNW State Of The Union 20120603

today wisconsin is a fall preview. >> they look at wisconsin, and they see america's battleground between people who want to work together to solve problems and penal who want to divide and conquer. >> democratic challenger and milwaukee mayor tom barrett on his bid to oust the republican governor in a recall race. then battleground politics with virginia republican governor bob mcdonald, u.s. jobs and the bloodshed in syria. plus, unemployment is up, the dow is down, and the presidential election is 157 days away. analysis from mark zande of moody's analytics, stechen moore of the "wall street journal," and dan balz of the "washington post." i'm candy crowley. and this is "state of the union." 19 months after electing republican scott walker as governor, wisconsin voters decide tuesday whether to recall him. walker's critics were galvanized by his first budget designed to fix a $3.6 billion shortfall. it included stripping collective bargaining rights for most public workers and increasing their contributions to their pension and health care plans. the race is seen as a test run of things to come on the national scene pitting republicans and the tea party against democrats and organized labor. it has attracted mega millions from outside the state and lots of attention from party headliners, but as republicans like to note, not all the headliners. >> well, it's more obvious is that the president himself, the current president, is not in town, and that to me speaks volumes, his absence. >> joining me is milwaukee mayor tom barrett, the man who lost to governor scott in the 2010 election and looks to unseat him now in the recall. mr. mayor, thank you for being here this morning. let me start out with you asking whether you have asked the president to come and campaign on your behalf? >> no, because we understand that he's got a lot going on, and this actually started as a grassroots movement here in wisconsin because of governor walker's lack of integrity and his surprise attack on workers in the state. so integrity and a grassroots effort was how this started and it will be on those same two notes, that's how this campaign will end. >> you certainly have certainly the republicans have had more out of state money and more out of state help, but you have had some national figures come in as well from the party and also from the unions who have been fighting governor walker in particular based off this budget, and one of those folks, jer jerry, the president of asme, had this to say about the democratic party. we think there could have been more responsibility, more work on behalf of the national democratic party. we think they could and should have done more. as you look at these next couple of days moving forward, where do you think the momentum is and could you use more from the dnc and from some of these other folks to get in there and try to pull you over the finish line? >> well, candy, i traveled the state yesterday, i'm going to be traveling the state again today and tomorrow. yesterday it was just a phenomenal day. literally hundreds of people all throughout the state, people saying to me they have never seen the level of excitement they're seeing right now, and it's people from wisconsin. it's people who live here, and that's what this should be all about. it should be all about the people in the state of wisconsin because you've got a sitting governor, the only governor in this country who has a legal defense fund, all this outside money. this is wisconsin values versus outside influence. and again i want to be on the side of wisconsin values. >> do you think then that there is no national message in this? that win or lose, you don't see any national implications for november or any tea leaves coming out of this wisconsin race? >> again, scott walker wants to make this a national race because he wants to be on the national stage as the rock star of the far right, as the poster boy of the tea party. that's not what i'm interested in. i'm not going to be the rock star of the far right and frankly on the rock star of the far left. i'm focusing on this state because that's what's important to me. >> i want to talk to you a little bit about recall elections in general. the marquette law school poll, this was about the approval or d disapproval of scott walker and how he's handling his job. that was may 23rd to 36th, so very recently. 51% of those, you know, said, look, we think -- we approve of the job he's doing. 45% disapprove. the recall election itself in general seems to me to encourage in some ways timid leadership. here is a guy who is polling 51% in your state and yet you're trying to recall him because you're unhappy with what he did. >> well, i think it's important to understand the history of wisconsin here. scott walker actually became the milwaukee county executive following a recall that he was one of the leaders of, and as a state legislator, he says he does not remember whether he signed recall petitions against senator kohl and senator feingold. >> how do you feel about them though? >> i think they should be rare. i absolutely -- think should be rare but this is a rare instance. off governor who did not campaign at all about having an attack on workers, on workers in this state, and he came in in a very furtive fashion. he said, and these are his words, he said he was going to be dropping the bomb and he was going to divide and conquer. he set out on a strategy to pit people in this state against each other and he succeeded in pitting people against each other. >> again, it seems to me that if you use a recall election because a governor does something you don't like, you set up the stakes for timid leadership. they're always sort of putting their finger to the wind trying to figure out what people want so they don't get recalled. the president himself has said i need four more years in order to fix what's wrong with the economy and other things, and scott walker, that whole recall thing, began within months of his taking office. that's kind of what i wanted you to address. >> sure. well, it's important again to understand what happened. he said that he was require state employees to pay more towards their health care and their pensions, and quite honestly what happened was they agreed to do that. they agreed to do that. did they want to do it? of course not, but the leadership agreed to do that. this entire episode would have been avoided if he would have said, all right, i campaigned on that, you agree to it, let's move on, but it became clear very, very early that was not all that was going on here. he wanted to go after his political opponents around permanently disarm them. that's what this was all about, taking away their rights. he said it was the first step. and the next step obviously would be to go after people who are in the private sector and people who aren't in unions. so i believe that this is the first step towards taking away workers' rights throughout the state, and that's where the surprise attack came in. he never once mentioned that, but once he came in, he instead of focusing on jobs, which he said he was going to do, he took this road where he went after the rights of workers throughout the state of wisconsin. that's what got people up in arms. >> quickly, mr. mayor -- >> all of this would have been avoided if he would -- >> quickly if i can, are you going to win this thing? jim going to win it. we saw in the last tracking poll two nights ago, this is 800 samples, i was one vote behind. not one percentage vount behind, but one vote behind and we have literally thousands of people on the streets this weekend. so we are very, very positive. >> milwaukee mayor tom barrett, you have got a busy couple days ahead of you so we doubly appreciate your time this morning. >> thank you, candy. we invited governor walker to appear, but we were told his schedule was too tight. now, one state that president obama and mitt romney are fighting hard to win this november is virginia. governor bob mcdonald is here next. uh-oh. [ male announcer ] when diarrhea hits, kaopectate stops it fast. powerful liquid relief speeds to the source. fast. [ male announcer ] stop the uh-oh fast with kaopectate. joining me, virginia governor bob mcdonald. he heads the republican governor's association and you're a man that has been out to wisconsin to try to help governor walker stay in office. about $8.3 million you all have sent out to him to try -- >> about. >> about, but probably a little more by this point. >> yes. >> what do you think is at stake. we just heard from the mayor, the democratic challenger, that he doesn't think this has anything to do with the national scene. does it? >> i think it will, but it's certainly about wisconsin. it's about a governor campaigning saying elect me and i will do certain things to create more jobs and get our fiscal house in order. and this is a guy that's kept his word and i think the voters will reward him for his courage. >> and if he loses, what does it say? >> i'm not planning on that, candy. i think the tracking -- >> you must fear that though a little bit. >> of course, because it's all about the ground game, there's same-day registration in wisconsin which can change the dynamics. scott has worked incredibly hard. here is what at stake. he said we will get a $3.6 billion budget fixed. we will reduce property taxes. >> budget shortfall. >> and create jobs. and that's what he did. and this is about results. it's going to be the same thing with romney and obama. as you put policies in place, were they controversial? yes. does it take guts and leadership to tell people we can't afford to do these things jen more? sure. but he's done it. and now he's getting the results. >> but if they come back a year and a half later and say we don't like these reforms and they reject him, does that not say that you can go too far, that this is one republican who went too far and found himself out of office? >> ask me wednesday. i don't think that's going to happen. >> i'm going to hold you to that then. >> you can do that. this is what's happening in washington as well is people expected results. obama promised a couple years ago, if i don't have this deal done in three years, it's going to be a one-term proposition, meaning on spending, deficit, on debt, on jobs, and he hasn't delivered. that's why i think there will be a change in leadership in washington. people are tired of the rhetoric. >> let me talk to you about the swing state of virginia. >> yeah. >> i want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. it's a success story really. >> you can keep that up for a wile. >> you like this, i understand it. does it not make it difficult for mitt romney, who has the same problem in other swing states to come in and say the economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president because virginia is doing very well under president obama. >> yeah, i don't think it undermines his argument at all for two reasons. one is as well as we've been fortunate to do with the lowest unemployment in the southeast, i tell people, think how much better we'd do if we had president romney. number two, i think that there's something going on with republican governed states. seven out of the ten states that have the lowest unemployment rates, republican governed states. >> do you credit president obama at all for the good fortune virginia has had? >> what would you point to that would lead you to say that that unemployment -- the only thing i can say is he had a nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus, and that was one time spending. did it help news the short run with health care and education? sure. does it help news the long term to cut the unemployment rate, i'd say no but we have done a lot of things. republicans and democrats in virginia doing things i requested on economic development and targeted tax kuts and other things that i think have made a difference. so i'd say republican governors are doing some things that are making a difference and that's why i'm trying to get more of them this year. >> just a tiny bit of credit to the president? >> sure. i think there's national policy that is have had some impact but i can tell you this, if we didn't have all these attacks on virginia's energy industry we'd be in a lot better place. this president on coal, natural gas, nuclear, not letting us drill offshore, the environmental protection agen agency's overburdensome regulations on coal and gas has made it much more difficult for us. >> let me ask you about governor romney's record as governor of massachusetts. >> sure. >> when he -- during his four years there, the state was 47th in job creation. there quas was a net gain in payroll fob of 1%, which is well below the net gain nationwide. spending went up, the size of government went up. what kind of record is that for a republican to run on? >> i'd say it's better than that. he went from 47th down to 30th in job creation by the time he left office. he had a $3.6 billion deficit, too. was able to cut that and left office with a $2 billion rainy day fund. i'd say that's pretty good. >> but in the end, you know, he was 47th throughout that whole four-year period, and he is selling himself as a businessman who knows how to create jobs and yet really didn't do that very well when he was in massachusetts. you see the democrats going after this. what's his defense here? >> well, the numbers i have is it went down to 30th by the time he left office nationwide in job creation. more importantly than that, candy s what he did in the private sector. add democrat legislature. that's a deep blue state and i think managing the fiscal house and trying to create jobs during that time, he had to combat a democratic legislature, but look what he did at bain capital, as executive director of the olympics, over 100,000 new jobs with venture capital. he knows how to create jobs in the private sector. he understands the american dream because he's lived it. i'd say president obama had the kind of record mitt romney did, he'd be talking about it, but he can't run on it. >> two quick questions. donald trump staying on the birther issue seems to me a cynic would look at that and go, well, it helps keep a certain part of the base of the republican party happy. mitt romney has not condemned it. in fact, he campaigned and fund raised alongside donald trump. are you bothered by the kinds -- >> mitt romney and i both agree the president was born in america. it's not where he was born. it's his policies that are the issue in this race. 8% unemployment rate for 40 months, the largest debt in american history at $16 trillion and growing and no plan on debt reduction. that's the issue, not where he was born. >> has the romney campaign asked for any papers in the vp search for you. >> they have asked for my schedule to see where i can help them next. >> sounds like maybe he has. we'll talk to you later. virginia governor, bob mcdonald. amid new signs the recovery may be hitting the brakes. republicans and democrats are pointing fingers. >> instead of another campaign speech, the president might want to engage with democrats and republicans here on capitol hill. >> republicans are risking another deep recession. >> two senators who have reached across the aisle, republican dick lugar and republican mark warner are here next. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. [ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering. those are live pictures of queen elizabeth's diamond jubilee celebration along the thames river. cnn's coverage picks up at 11:00 a.m. eastern. back here on "state of the union" i'm joined by republican senator dick lugar of indiana and democratic senator mark warner of virginia. brought you both together because you both are known for working across the aisle in a time when there hasn't been much of that. i want to play you something that president obama said on friday. >> so my message to congress is, now is not the time to play politics. now is not the time to sit on your hands. the american people expect their leaders to work hard no matter what year it is. >> the president repeatedly chastises congress on the campaign trail for not working and not doing anything about jobs, et cetera, but i hear from republicans publicly, some democrats privately, that the president has not used the power of his office to push some of these ideas that he's out there talking about. has there been too much politics on the white house end of this as well, senator warner? >> well, i didn't get the memo that we were actually supposed to take presidential election years off. you know, if we look around -- >> but has he? >> i think the president has laid out an agenda. >> did he push for it? >> well, i think he has pushed for it. i think there's been particularly in the house an almost knee-jerk reaction that anything the president could be for, they've got to be against. but even if you step back and say where can we find common ground, the senate worked together, we passed a two-year highway bill that would put people to work, give a little predictability. we recently passed a bill bipartisan. senator lugar and i, the overwhelming majority of the senate, to feed up the fda approval process. there are things we can do even in an selection year to get this economy going. >> you hear democrats privately, republicans publicly, this they don't hear from the president. that he hasn't said to congress, pick up the phone, i need you guys to really work on this. have you seen more or less presidential influence in the obama administration than previous administrations? >> in this particular year the president is campaigning for re-election. that's his total preoccupation and he's been criticized for that by some democrats who would say as a matter of fact you ought to be talking about how jobs are going to be created, how, in fact, you have more comprehensive view of the deficit, of the debt, of all of these sorts of things. this has not been something on the president's agenda except broadly. i would agree with mark that essentially members of congress still have tried to pick up in modest ways. we're working on a farm bill, for example, where we have a majority and we're hoping to get that to the floor. this is not the whole thing, but i would say simply there have been congressional initiatives quite apart from the president. >> let me ask you, and i don't mean to bring up a sore subject, but richard murdoch, who defelted you in the republican primary, was on fox news recently and talked about the idea of bipartisanship and here is what he said. >> i have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of democrats coming to the republican point of view. >> we are hearing this this election is going to solve things, that there will be a clear picture after this election of which way the country wants to go, the republican way or the democratic way. does that sound like to you, do you believe that the election is going to desight something or are we fundamentally a divided country that can't seem to get congress to work? >> well, respectfully, i think what mr. myrurdock said is wack. i don't know what constitution he wants to defend. the brilliance of the founding fathers were they set up a slightly dysfunctional government to start with, checks and balances, independent house, independent senate, independent president. you have to work together to find that common ground. that's what dick lugar has been about, that's what a whole lot of senators in both parties have been about and the motion that this election will be so overwhelming for one side or the other that there will be a clear picture and one party is going to be able to rule the roost, i just don't see that happening, and with the rest of the world moving ahead, we've got to find that common ground on particularly i believe that debt and deficit issue. nothing would do more to jump start our economy than to put that type of bipartisan plan in place to get this economy going. >> i want to ask you about the fiscal cliff after we come back. next up, it is about the crisis in syria. is the meter tipping away from military support? >> we consider all contingencies at all time. >> we have been focused on the need to bring about a political transition. >> there's still the potential for there to be a peaceful political resolution. there are a million reasons why. but your erectile dysfunction that could be a question of blood flow. cialis for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. we are back with senators richard lugar of indiana and mark warner of virginia. so the notion that this election will, you know, suddenly make it all clear, which, you know, which party the americans support, i think we all have sort of said this isn't going to happen. so then bhawhat happens to this fiscal cliff? what happens to this $8 billion that will be taken out of the economy at the end of the year in tax increases and spending cuts? how is congress going to deal with that? >> well, essentially the congress leadership has decided not to deal with it until after the election which i think is a mistake fundamentally, but let's say after the election very quickly we have the debt ceiling problem. we have the sequester problem, the money for the armed forces quite apart from the rest of it will be taken away, plus all the end of the bush tax cuts which means tax increases for every american. you can say all of that could be postponed until two months, three months, six months down the trail -- >> romney says if he's elected he'd rather -- >> but that requires congress to come to that conclusion. on whatever the election is there is unlikely to be a 60-vote majority in the senate and unless you have a 60-vote majority and say my way or the highway, you're going to have to deal across the aisle. so it would be better to be doing some of that now, picking up the simpson/bowles language or various other gang of six or 12 or so forth. i would hope that might occur. i think the american people would be more relieved and their thoughts about the congress would be much better. >> i imagine you can agree with that. i want to move you on to syria because i know you have been on -- if you want to say something before that, feel free. but something that mitt romney said recently about the situation in syria. the united states should work with partners to organize and arm syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves. good idea, bad idea? let's start with you. >> i want to address the economic issue still. that the idea that we're going to continue to punt this problem, which would be almost a european approach, we have watched this slow-motion train wreck take place in europe because they have not stepped up. i think there is the will in congress to take the simpson/bowles, the gang of six, to phase in a $5 trillion over ten-year deficit reduction plan that will raise some revenues, reform our entitlement programs. we have to do it. there will be nothing that would do more to jump start our economy and get the $2 trillion in private sector capital off the sidelines investing if we can make those permanent changes. now, in syria, i just came back from egypt and israel, a very dangerous neighborhood at this point. i think we need to continue to ratchet up the pressure on assad to get that regime out. i think it is different from libya though because there's not the kind of unanimity at the united nations or around the arab league to have the kind of military intervention it seems president -- or mr. romney is calling for. >> well, let me read you something. this came from the arab lead secretary-general yesterday who said more audacious steps are needed after the houla massacre in order to end the bloodshed. there's even some urgency coming from the arab league. does that help the u.s. make decisions about should we try to work with folks to get some arms into the syrian opposition that's being brutally crushed? >> it helps all of us, but i would say specifically we ought to work with the turks to set up some zones in turkey's territory guarded by turks that syrians can retreat to, so-called safe zones. we ought to increase the sanctions on the government of syria and the central bank sanctions as well as all others people can cooperate in. economic pressures. try to reinforce the diplomatic train instead of dismissing co-ni annan and the peace people, we ought to strengthen the hand so we get some talks going with the syrian government. the pressure would have to be increased, but i made two suggestions there as to how that might occur. there might be others. >> they don't have to be military pressure of arming. i know you were worried about the prenz of al qaeda and other terrorist groups. >> i'm worried about we don't really know who makes up the syrian opposition. >> the same could be said for labia though. we didn't know who they were either. >> we have seen some of the armed smuggling take place out of libya and into the lie. i think we need to continue to put the pressure on the russians. let's face it, syria is supported dramatically by the russians and we need to move the russians off of that support as well. >> senator lugar, i have less than a minute and i have to ask you, what's next for richard lugar after a long distinguished senate career. you are one of the president's favorite republicans which probably didn't help new your primary race. would you consider if the president is re-elected a position in his administration say in diplomacy or foreign policy? >> i think my role is going to be outside of government. i look forward to opportunities but i'm not going tole think about it for three or four months because essentially i have got work to do for seven months. we've been talking about what we ought to be doing back and forth across the aisle in the senate now to help americans, the people i want to serve. there's where my preoccupation is going to be. >> senator lugar, senator warner, thank you for -- >> we're going to lose a lot when we lose dick lugar. >> a lot of people have said that. >> thank you. up next, a dismal jobs report and what it could mean for the election. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... how did the nba become the hottest league on the planet? by building on the cisco intelligent network they're able to serve up live video, and instant replays, creating fans from berlin to beijing. what can we help you build? nice shot kid. the nba around the world built by the only company that could. cisco. the economy created 69,000 jobs in may, about half of what was predicted. the unemployment rate went up to 8.2%. and inside the overall picture the numbers are especially painful for people whose votes the president counts on. the growth rate of manufacturing jobs declined in may. for hispanics the unemployment rate rose to 11% from 10.3%. it rose as well for african-americans up more than half a percent to 13.6%. the president thinks the numbers should be seen from the vantage point of where we've been. >> we're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the economy is growing again, but it's not growing as fast as we want it to grow. >> but mitt romney says the numbers are about where we are not. >> we should be well into a very robust recovery by now if the president's policies had worked, if he had been able to get america back on track. why, we'd be looking at what happened in europe as being a problem, but certainly not devastating. these numbers are devastating. >> not helpful at all, uncertainty in europe and the end of year fiscal cliff in the u.s. when nearly $8 trillion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to take affect. adding it all up with our panel next. at bank of america, we're lending and investing in communities across the country. from helping to revitalize a neighborhood in brooklyn... financing industries that are creating jobs in boston... providing funding for the expansion of a local business serving a diverse seattle community... and lending to ensure a north texas hospital continues to deliver quality care. because the more we can do in local neighborhoods and communities, the more we can help make opportunity possible. here to talk politics and the latest job numbers mark zandi, wauge columnist stechen moore, and "washington post" political correspondent dan bal z. i was only half kidding when i said analysts need to stop predicting what the job market is going to do. we were told 150,000 and it comes up less than 69,000. it just looks -- that's bad, but isn't it worse if -- since we were expecting twice as many? >> i'm on board with that if you can get me off the hook. >> what happened here? >> two things. one thing, the job market is not as weak as it looks. we have a lot of job growth in the winter, remember, back december, january, february, we got 250,000 jobs per month. so there's some payback and that's what we're seeing right now. we have 100,000 jobs, what is it march, april, may. we're somewhere in between these two numbers, somewhere around 150k. the second reason this is more fundamental, businesses are skittish, they're nervous, they have been through a lot, that great recession. that nightmare still in their psyche. if anything goes off script just a little bit, they stop hiring. it's not that they're laying off, that would be a real problem, i don't think that's happening. they just pause in their hiring. >> you know, stephen, i feel like every time there's some reason, there was a tsunami, there was a warm winter, there was this, does it actually change what's happening? it seems to me there's always some excuse. >> i think it's hard to put any lipstick on this pig. those were really lousy numbers. by the way, also we had a revision downward on the first quarter output numbers, less than 2%, those are kind of miserable numbers. i mean, the one thing i disagree a little bit about mark on, we should be accelerating on job creation. we had this very deep recession when we lost 6 million or 7 million jobs. this is a period when he should have a robust recovery. you should be seeing 400,000, 500,000 a jobs a month and we're nowhere near there. it's a drowning man that's treading water and that isn't good enough. >> we can't forget the severity of what we went through. think back four years ago, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month when the president took office. you just don't forget that as a business person. if anything goes wrong, a tsunami in japan or clearly europe, the fiscal cliff, all those things make people nervous. >> and the reagan era at this stage we were creating 500,000 jobs a month, growing three times faster. i think a lot of this is policy related and policy hmistakes we made in washington. >> so much was written after these numbers. we've had disappointing months before and it was sort of it's a month, don't worry about the month. now it seems to me the analysis has been this is not good news at the white house, it may be a turning point. what's your take? >> i think it was a wake-up call at the white house about the kind of campaign they've been running. we've seen all these distractions about this campaign, the attacks on bain which a number of democrats have been unhappy about, the donald trump birther issue which came back to the fore last week. friday's numbers reminded people of where the country really is and what the issue that most of the voters who are sitting out there trying to decide what to do are really worried about, and i think to some extent it may force both of the candidates to get back onto a message about why are we in this situation and what am i, romney or obama, going to do about it. >> let me ask something mark brought up and ask you all to kind of chime in on this. the president basically said, let's remember where we've been here and, you know, it's going to take us more than overnight to climb out of this pit that he inherited. and romney came back and said, you know what? 40 months isn't overnight, folks. it should be better than this. which is the winning argument? and is that just really the crux of the matter? >> of course, the president is going to say that, you know, this was a terrible crisis and it was a terrible crisis. there's no question about it. he inherited, you're right, an economy where we were losing 700,000 jobs a month but it's also been almost four years. >> 800,000. >> but the point is normally when you have a steep recession and deep recession, usually you boom out of these periods and you have very rapid growth and the problem is i think a lot of americans would say, wait a minute, where is the growth going to be. the problem isn't just that we've got such anemic growth right now in jobs and output, but a lot of economists, mark himself, is saying we're not going to see the rapid growth that americans are expecting. >> you expect this to be pretty yuck, right, through the rest of the year? we're not going to look and go woo-hoo, we've turned a corner. >> europe is a real problem and that could have significant implications. and our own fiscal policy, the fiscal cliff, treasury debt ceiling. remember back last summer, that was significant. that did a lot of damage to the collective psyche and we have another round of that coming up. we have to get past that. i think business people start to engage and start to hire more. >> dan, how is it playing? how are the two arguments playing? one is it should be a lot better than it is right now and the other is, whoo, it was a lot worse. >> it's playing about 50/50. we are seeing a very, very tight election, and given where the president is right now, he's highly vulnerable. we have said this for a long time and i think that there were times when democrats thought, mitt romney is not that strong a candidate, he had some tough times during the primary campaign, and i think a lot of democrats thought the president is going to be okay. i think what happened friday reminded people this is going to be a tight, tight, tight election as we go through the summer. >> i think the economy is in a fundamentally better place than it was a several years ago. we have come a long way. american countries have tremendous profits, margins ever wide, balance sheets -- >> nathey're not using any of i to hire people. >> they are. we have hired more than 4 million people -- >> they're not using enough of it. >> i agree. they've come a long way. the banking system is highly capitalized. they're not lending enough but they're lending more. we're starting to see activity pick up. even households, they've made a lot of progress. we as a nation, our economy is in a much better place fundamentally from where it was. >> i want to give you an amazing statistic that confounds me more than any statistic over the last 30 years. right now you have a ten-year treasury bill at about 1.5% -- >> less than. >> we have 2% to 3% inflation. people are giving the government money, paying them back a negative real interest rate. that's something you almost never see. now, why is that happening? i think because there's so much fear and uncertainty right now out there, people are just going to cook oon. they don't want to invest, and i think one of the things i would have fault president obama on, all of this attack against bane capital, against people getting rich, against wealth, i think it's just a negative thing for the stock market, and, of course, i entirely -- the one thing mark and i disagree with, but the one thing i think we both agree on is this fiscal cliff. the big tax increase is a big, big problem, and president obama should take that off the table. he should say we're not going to do it. >> that 1.5% treasury yield, that is fear. it's fwloebl fear. that means that we are the triple-a credit. if anyone is scared about anything, they come right back to the united states and they buy our treasury bonds. >> does it matter, dan, that we look at the battleground states and we see that their economies in most of them are better than the national economy, so the places where we think the election is going to be decided have actually pretty good looking economy comparatively speaking. does that matter? >> it may matter some, but there's an argument -- take ohio, for example. there is an argument underway in ohio. their unemployment rate is more than the national average. the administration says that's in part because of what we did to save the auto industry, and that auto industry is helping to revive the economy in ohio. the republicans say no. what's really going on is you have a republican governor who has taken on the fiscal issues in the state, so we're going to see that debate in some of these battleground states. >> let me ask you. a moody's electoral mogdz, the only swing state of the five that it looked at that they see moving from the obama column to the romney column is florida. >> right. >> why is that? >> well, florida is still a very good economy. again, unemployment rate is -- house prices still weak. of all the swing states it's workings than it has brooufd least. virginia, taurp us to the governor, that's doing quite well. ohio has had a tough time, but it's improving rapidly wrash ohio, new hampshire doing much better. >> let me get back to the fiscal cliff. let me try to put it in my sort of lamen's terms, and that is that about $8 trillion is about to get taken out of the economy over a course of time in both mandated spending cuts as well as tax rates -- or tax increases when the bush tax cuts go away. how is that -- a, is that right, and, b, how does that get fixed? because everyone says, well, after the election we'll have a clear path, and we all know that after the election we'll have the same path. we'll have a 50-50 split. >> i think it's as likely as anything that it will get fixed by pushed off months or a year. many some way just as congress has been want to do time and time again, tried to delay that moment of reckoning. now, you know, you all know and can articulate better than i the consequences of continuing to do that, but i think that is the inclination of politicians today to try to find the least solution that they can find and delay it. >> the tax issue, which to me is the big one. i think we should do the spending. we need more austerity in government and less austerity in the private sector. what we're talking about is on january 1, 2013 capital gains tax is going up, dividend tax is going up, small business tax is going up. that's one of the reasons there's no investment, and one of the reasons the stock market we haven't even talked about that, that's tumbled partly because capital gains tax are going up next year, and people are selling their stocks. >> you're going to hate this, but i have to look -- >> thank you. come back. you'll get the first word. how about that? >> up next, stories of u.s. military veterans and service members lost in the system. there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. or creates another laptop bag or hires another employee, it's not just good for business, it's good for the entire community. at bank of america, we know the impact that local businesses have on communities. that's why we extended $6.4 billion in new credit to small businesses across the country last year. because the more we help them, the more we help make opportunity possible. >> we heard from a lot of you last week after talking about the growing backlog of the v.a. for actions on veterans benefits and the average year-plus wait for discharge of those deemed unfit for service due to a variety of disabilities. unfortunately, waiting in any all of you know too well, including this wife of a 20-year army vet. >> my husband retired, and he keeps hearing that his claim is being processed and the v.a. says it will will be between september and january before his claim will be processed. >> we asked the v.a. about this, and some of the other emails we received. they told us they are aggressively working to transform the delivery of benefits and services to meet its 2015 goal of processing all veterans' claims in less than 125 days with 98% accuracy. those are unfortunately dates without meaning for those who wait now. we also heard stories of those still in the service often languishing in or confused by a bureaucratic or medical morasse. they've been trying to get him dismissed from active service after a traumatic brain injury. >> josh went to see his doctor for a physical before he was going to go to afghanistan, and his doctor told him there was no way that a soldier in his condition was fet for duty. after almost two years of sitting around and waiting, the army told my brother that he would no longer being -- >> med boarded is the term used when doctors are determining if you are fit for duty. in this case the -- we will continue to follow these and other stories and we'll pursue a time for veteran affairs secretary general to join us for a conversation. share your story with us via e-mail state of the union@very nn.com and use lost in the system in the subject line. join us for analysis and web exclusive at cnn the

Transcripts For CNN Fareed Zakaria GPS 20120325

later, an inside look at the silicon valley facebook, paypal, facebook, zynga. reid hoffman has been at the ground floor of all of them. and why is one of america's friends, india, friends with one of its sworn enemies, iran? playground politics are at large. i'll explain. but first, here's my take. we're going to hear a lot of polarized rhetoric over the next few months. the republicans and democrats will seem to disagree about everything. but there is one huge and important area where there is a possibility, a possibility of bipartisan action. that's tax reform. most americans, republicans and democrats, dislike the tax code. their right to do so. america has what is arguably the world's most complex tax code. the federal code plus irs rulings is now 70,000 pages long. the code itself is 16,000 pages. the state of france has only 1,909, only 10% of ours. and then there are others that have innovated and moved to a flat tax with considerable success. you have to understand, complexity equals corruption. when john mccain was still a raging reformer, he used to point out that the tax code was the foundation for the tax code of corruption. see, vast amounts of cash for campaigns and in return, they get favorable exemptions or loopholes in the tax code. in other countries, this sort of bribery takes place under bridges and in cash and in brown envelopes. in america, it is institutionalized and legal but it is the same thing. cash to politicians in return for favorable treatment from the government. the u.s. tax system is not simply corrupt. it is corrupt in a deceptive manner that has degraded the entire system of american government. congress is able to funnel money in perpetuity to its favorite funders through the tax code without anyone realizing it. for those who despair at the role of money in government. the simplest way to get it out is to remove the prize that congress gives away, preferential tax treatment. almost no exemptions does that. the simplest fix to our tax code would be to lower the income tax dramatically, and instead raise revenues through a national sales tax or a value-added tax. the u.s. is the only rich country in the world without a national sales tax. germany has one at 19%, britain at 20%, korea at 10%. what's the appeal of the consumption tax? the government loses several hundred billions of dollars a year to tax fraud. this is much harder to pull off with a consumption tax. second, it provides the government with a more stable source of revenue than income taxes. income taxes flux greatly. third, americans consume too much, often using credit and leverage to do so. a consumption tax would moderate this behavior. government will always get less of behavior taxes and more of what it subsidizes. ironically you the heavy reliance on income taxes makes the american system more progressive than those in europe. the federal government gets about 43% of its total tax revenues from taxes on individual incomes and profits compared with only 29% in germany and 22% in france. the balance for france and germany comes from the v.a.t., which is highly regressive. one recent oecd study showed that the top 10% in america pay a larger share of total taxes. 45.1% than do the top 10% in any of the 24 countries examined. in germany, they pay 31% of the taxes and in france, 28%. the best thing about tax reform is that it kills corruption. so if you ask me what kind of tax code i'm in favor of, i'm in favor of any new tax code that fills one requirement, it should fit on two pages. let's get started. if 2011 was the year of revolutionary change, maybe 2012 will be the year of electoral change. 26 nations go to the polls this week to vote for their president, prime minister, punching bag in chief. that includes four of the five u.n. security council members, the united states, of course, and also france and russia where mr. putin, not surprisingly, got the nod and china has a big leadership change coming, too. this represents 40% of the world's gdp. what does all of this potential change mean amidst all of the other challenges in the world? i have a great panel to talk about this. anne-marie slaughter and richard haas are both former members of the state department. on the other side of the story, bruce boinasketa is professor of politics at new york university. welcome. richard, when you were in government, would you find that there was an election? let's say sarkozy loses. will it make a difference? >> actually, it will. mr. sarkozy is running as though he wants to change france into germany and given the situation in europe right now, this might be an election that does matter. mr. hollande would implement 10 or 20% of what he's saying, it would make a difference. it would matter more than an election in a mature democracy would matter. >> anne-marie? >> i think he might want to do all of those things but i'm more worried about friends in german politics. i think the eu depends on france and germany and france and germany depend on the eu continuing. >> the issues you're talking about is hollande is proposing first a very, very large role for the state than france has? >> yes. >> 75% tax rates. and also proposing that the french get out of the business of this partnership with germany in forcing discipline on southern europe? >> yes. >> you think that they will have to continuing doing that but you're worried the germans won't be able to continue to do that? >> yes. the real concern is that germany decides it doesn't want to play the central role it has played in the eu, which has been the banker and the country that often makes sacrifices for greater political union and german voters are tired. it's in germany's economic interest to do that but politically, that's not as sure a thing as it has been. >> bruce, you do a lot of modeling for the cia, for the state department, for other governments. if you were to try to construct a model, do you think that -- about whether the euro is going to survive or collapse through this period of crisis, what would you say? >> i think the euro zone is going to likely survive for at least the next few years. longer term, that's a different story. i think richard is a little optimistic about the possibilities in france. >> you think sarkozy will likely win? >> i think he will likely win and i wouldn't think it will make a big difference who wins. they can move a little. they can't move far. i think we should note, with regard to france, that people thought when president obama was president-elect obama, that he was going to have policies were going to be radically different than george w. bush and on the domestic front he certainly has and in some parts of the foreign policy he has. but mostly, we're still in guantanamo. we're still in afghanistan. there hasn't been this radical shift. >> well, we're pulling out of afghanistan and domestically, hang on. we've had financial reform, we've had health care. not of the scale he proposed, but those have been bigger domestic changes that any other government -- >> there's one place that you have to admit, anne, significant continuity, vladimir putin becoming president -- i assume you don't think there will be much change in russian foreign policy? >> i'm not so sure. putin was elected, everybody knew he was going to be elected. that's not different. >> but he's already running the country. >> yes, he was already running the country and he clearly imagines another possible two terms. i do think he's going to be under different constraints. i think he is going to be facing either having to be much more repressive, really shutting down the opposition in a way to now that he has not done or he's going to have to start reforming in the way he says he wants to do. his own account is, i stabilized the country, i increased the national income, we're now growing, we're now strong. now i can turn to sort of a more orderly transition to democracy. that's his story. that would be a way out with -- given the political pressures, but it's also possible, certainly given his background, that that's all talk, in which case he's really going to have to tighten the screws on opposition and then we might really see a lot of turbulence. >> do you think that putin is a person with whom the united states can continue to deal and that he will be a likely cooperative partner on some issues like iran? because there's this whole idea that the obama administration has, which is we're going to reset relationships with russia, not because we love them but because we need for a bunch of things and we can establish a good working relationship. do you think that's likely? >> i think the administration was right to try the reset. it's probably now necessary to reset the reset. putin is a spoiler. when people face the kinds of choices that anne-marie described, i think likely he goes towards repression rather than opening, the tendency is to use foreign policy a bit to vent and distract and my hunch is that putin will be less of a partner than he will be going forward, which is not much of a partnership. i think this will be a rough relationship. we're not talking about going back to the cold war but essentially the united states is going to have to attack this without much help from russia. it might mean less and less role for the united nations. if china and russia are not there as partners in the u.n., increasingly multilateralism is going to have to be a little narrower without the formality of the u.n. >> well, in broader terms, there is a difference between china and russia. china is a country that wants to modernize. it has a a parochial selfish interest that it wants to guard. the russians, on the other hand, are the only other that is an oil state. russia benefits from national tension. they don't benefit from the international tensions being solved. >> i think that's exactly right. the chinese benefits from tensions being solved because it gives them cheaper oil and they need the oil and energy. the russian benefit from the price being high. and betting on what putin will do, if the price of oil is high, he will oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. then he will become more oppressive. and it the price drops substantially, then probably liberalize because that would be the solution. the likelihood that oil is going to drop is not real. when we come back, we're going to talk about iran. and we are back with anne-marie slaughter and richard haass. russia benefits from crisis, the price of oil goes up and china on the other hand benefits from international tensions being reduced and oil prices going down. but you thought that they don't quite behave that way? >> there's a gap between what you think chinese national interest would dictate and what chinese behavior is. china ought to be there shoulder to shoulder partnering with us to get iran to behave. the last thing china wants is the straits to be closed and a war which would drive the prices to 3, $400 a barrel. they are a major importer. china is not there with us. they are essentially sitting back and they are not putting pressure on iran much with sanctions or anything else or even with north korea. >> do they care if iran gets a nuke? >> well, i'm not sure they care if iran gets a nuke. but, also, this is short-term interests over long-term interests because in the short term they can be cut deal with iran and get cheaper oil and actually benefit from the fact that everybody else is sanctioning iran. >> the longer term could be three or four months. they could find themselves where china has to do a rebalancing, they have a leadership transition and growth is coming down. they've got a lot to deal with on their plate. >> suppose you were to try and construct again using game material. win-win solution that is not a war. is there a negotiated outcome? because we're having negotiations. what i'm struck by is nobody wants to put out what is the solution? what is the kind of inspection regime that would be enough to survive the world but not so humiliating to the iranians that they would accept. >> we have a problem similar to north korea. in the sense that in both cases, we have a very close ally that feels threatened by their neighbor. we have this hostile neighbor that feels threatened and needs to deter. in the case of iran, therefore, i think the solution is for our government to decide, do we care more about the nuclear issue or do we care more about regime change? if there was a constructive regime change, that might solve the nuclear problem. but our pressures on iran may be exacerbating the nuclear danger because of the fears that we are contemplating regime change. >> so you're saying the more you threaten the regime with regime change, the more the regime will say, hey, i need to buy insurance. >> you're right. they need the capability to deter. >> i don't buy that. the iranian nuclear program has been in business a long time. they want to use their nuclear capability to bolster their role in the region. what we want to do -- i think there is a negotiation here. i think potentially there is a negotiation which says there has to be intrusive inspections, legitimately suspect facilities and have to be real ceilings on what it is you're allowed to do and keep based on what you've done in the past. i don't think we try to get iran completely out of the nuclear business. we don't humiliate them. but i think there's a potential deal. but we've only got a couple of months to do it. i think what the israelis are very clearly signaling is that unless there is serious progress and they are persuaded that they are not using that tactically to get stuff done, they are going to either act or they will act unless they have confidence that we will act before our window closes. so i think we've only actually got a few months to show that negotiations are really going to bear fruit. i believe the israelis are more likely to attack. >> most of the conversation is about concessions by them. it seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our european friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that iran claims it needs. they pay for it. they pay the price up to what they are spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. as long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. as long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy. >> i don't think it's going to work because they obviously want to do some of this themselves. a lot of the conversation today has been about politics. you just recently had elections in iran. the so called principalists around the supreme leader. this can go one of two leaders in april. either against this backdrop where they are willing to show no compromise before their elections, you could see iranian flexibility, maybe they are worried about military attack, they are feeling the heat of these sanctions or just the opposite. they've decided they can brazen it out. they don't think the united states will make good on their threats or they might still be in better shape because they can throw the -- any inspectors out, there will be a rally around the regime effect inside the country. we don't know. but i think this spring is going to be critical because either negotiations are going to show some promise or not. and if not, israel has to decide whether it trusts the united states to act or whether israel is going to act itself. so sometime in 2012, this issue is going to come to a head and it's going to dominate the world, i believe this year. >> all right. the thing i worry about is the point you made, they have to make concessions but we have to make concessions. i only say this because i can't think of any time in history where a regime under pressure has just cried, i surrender. >> i agree. >> they are unlikely, particularly within divisions in their leadership. second of all, this is a hard time for us to make concessions. we have politics, too. and this is going to play out against the backdrop of an election year. >> and obama has space to go right but he has no space to go left on this issue. if he were to start negotiations with iran direct and make some kind of concessions. >> no, but talks are restarting. i think he's made it clear that he's willing to go to war. the country doesn't want war overall and if he can now say, look, we are keeping pressure on, we've kept the military option on the table. we're going to prove that diplomacy can work. i think he's got some room. >> do you think that's possible? >> he's going to be attacked. if he goes in that direction. but he can still do it under our constitution and under our process. no one can stop him. congress can't stop him. the republican candidates can't stop him but he's only got a couple of months. not, again, because of our politics. it's because of the israeli politics. >> and we've got to stop there. thank you very much. up next, the story of a country that seems to be everyone's best friend. its buddies with america and israel just as it is with iran. what country is it? we'll tell you when we come back. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about the cookie-cutter retirement advice ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you get at some places. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 they say you have to do this, have that, invest here ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you know what? ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you can't create a retirement plan based on ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 a predetermined script. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to understand you and your goals... ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...so together we can find real-life answers for your ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 real-life retirement. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and let's write a script based on your life story. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 [ kareem ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes since i was a kid. [ mike ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to 35 thousand feet. these engines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ mike ] it's gonna fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monster fire up. [ jaronda ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ tom ] i would love to see this thing fly. [ kareem ] it's a dream, honestly. there it is. oh, wow. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] [ tom ] i wanna see that again. ♪ and now for our "what in the world" segment. i have a story for you. it's a story about a country that is america's friend, israeli's friend and yet it is also iran's friend. amid all of the talk of an israeli strike on iran, what is the country that stays friends with everyone? what in the world is going on? the country is india and it's been criticized in america for continuing to trade with iran despite coordinated sanctions on tehran. an article ran in "the wall street journal" that said they are calling it the mullah's last best friend. they have israeli defense is this, happens to be among the world's largest consumers and importers. the type of crude best suited for india's needs happens to be iranian's oil. there have been reports that the two countries reached a trade agreement to circumvent sanctions. iran can't trade in dollars so it is selling oil to india for rupp business and bartered goods instead. but there are also geopolitical concerns. india lives in a rough neighborhood. pakistan has for decades believed that it needed to limit india's influence in the region, particularly in afghanistan. so, islamabad has supported the taliban against the indian-backed northern alliance. they have always sided with india and its northern alliance friends. now outside of what it views as core interests, india is nowadays inactive on foreign policy. india has rarely been a force for good in the region or around the world mainly because it has not been much of a force. when the maldives had a coup, new delhi remained impassive. and so on with other crises in the region in bangladesh and sri lanka and more. compared to the clout it wants to have, new delhi has really only paid minor attention to its policy. india, with a population of 1.2 billion fewer diplomats than the population of new zealand, with the population of just 4 million people. americans stand to believe that all good things go together. india and america will have foreign policies, the friends and enemies. india, of course, is located in a different place. it has different interests. indians think that they can be free writers, exploit the stability of the current setup. but for the world's largest democracy that is an unworthy mission. india does have a tryst with destiny and it isn't just to buy cheap oil from whomever and damn the consequence and we will be back. >> the most important thing that people want in developing countries, like in our country, is a job. they want to be able to support their families. [♪...] >> announcer: with nothing but his computer, an identity thief is able to use your information to open a bank account in order to make your money his money. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock, the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. that was me the day i learned i had to start insulin for my type 2 diabetes. me... thinking my only option was the vial and syringe dad used. and me... discovering once-daily levemir flexpen. flexpen is prefilled. doesn't need refrigeration for up to 42 days. no drawing from a vial. dial the exact dose. inject by pushing a button. flexpen is insulin delivery my way. levemir is long acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not take if your blood sugar is too low. tell your health care provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. with flexpen, say good night to vial and syringe. ask your doctor about levemir flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com. only three people have ever served two terms as president of the world bank. my next guest is one of those men, james wolfensohn. he's a native australian by birth, but he has spent much of his career in finance and consulting here in the united states. he joins me now on the global public square. thank you. >> thank you. >> so tell me, after a long life in the private sector, you went to the world bank and what was the -- what was your biggest take away inside -- in term of doing something that was often seen by people in the private sector as giving away money, that the foreign aid is wasted, that you can't really get growth in that way. what did you think? >> well, i went to the world bank because when i was there, there were 6 billion people in the world and 5 billion lived in the developing world served by the world bank and it was already clear to me that the future was going to be in the developing world. that the billion people in the rich world, maybe in 40 years, would be 1 billion 400 million. but people in the developing world would grow by several billion. so the waves towards developing countries was very clear and the fact that in those days people would look at them as the poor countries and not give them any great economic importance. and while i was there, in the year 2000, the momentum shifted. and all of a sudden people said, what is china doing, what is brazil doing? and of course, i was there during that period when we saw the leaders in the economic world starting to come from the developing world. but the other aspect of the world bank's work are the people that are left behind. the billions of people that, frankly, don't have enough to eat, have no real future, but who are the weight of the world. and the world bank deals with those two issues. so i thought they couldn't be a more interesting place to go and when i was offered it by president clinton, i said immediately i'd love to do it. >> and what did you find in terms of the aid programs? you know, there's a very standard -- not just conservative lamen,t but a lot of private sector people say, look, all of this foreign aid is wasted. that's not how you get growth. >> well, don't believe that foreign aid necessarily gets you growth. what i think it can get you is education of the local people, it can get infrastructure, it can set a framework in which the private sector can operate, but it was never my belief that something like the world bank could introduce industrial projects and be responsible alone for employment. the most important thing that people want in developing countries, like in our country, is a job. they want to be able to support their families. they want to improve their lifestyle. and that is at the epicenter of what the bank tries to do. >> do you feel as though things are getting better everywhere or are they worse? how do you describe -- you know, good governance, corruption, is africa moving forward, is asia moving forward? >> look, i think there is progress. i started a campaign against what i call the cancer of corruption 15 years ago. and interestingly enough, before i talked about the cancer of corruption, no bank president had ever mentioned corruption because many of the shareholders in the bank came from corrupt countries. i think they are afraid of offending them. but the point is that it is now on the table and i think that there is some improvement. but i think the battle is far from won. i think it will take a generation, it will take more education of young people and then i think you've got a chance on the corruption issue. but i think what you need way beyond that is appropriate education, health care, a chance to develop the human -- the human capital that you have in these countries and it has to start with education and that i think there is some movement forward. >> how do you think obama is doing on the economy in general? >> well, i am not as great a critic as i think some are because i think he inherited a terrible miss. whether he could have done a bit better, i don't know. i think what is needed now is really some clear action and it's unlikely that we will get that action in an electoral year because he can come up with a program. the republicans can come up with a program and we all know what they are talking about is really dreams. they're not going to get them through now and it will be dependent on what happens in the election. but i think it's important for the nation to understand that we've borrowed too much and i think neither party disagrees that we've spent too much in recent years. and i think the simpson-bowles report, which came out and didn't have a lot of presence yet, first of all, is a very fine analysis and came up with what i thought was a pragmatic approach. i which we could get a debate on that but it's unlikely between now and the election. >> you've been a democrat but independent-minded. >> uh-huh. >> will you support president obama in his re-election? >> if you come into the voting booth with me, fareed, i will show you my voting slip. but at this moment i think i probably would. but i'd like to see who the republican candidate is and i'd like to listen to them. i think this period between now and the end of the year, particularly between now and the debate, between the president and the candidate, will be very important, certainly in the past i've been democratic. >> but you must know mitt romney. you know everyone. >> i barely know him. i barely know him. >> all right. final question. you are almost 80 years old. you are an olympic fencer. you taught yourself how to play the cello. what is the secret to managing a life in which you are able to do so many things with such distinction? do you take a special protein powder? >> i do that. but i also have for years, at the beginning of every year, since i was 15, written down things i'd like to do. >> that year? >> that year. >> and, you know, if i've wanted to be president of the united states, that wasn't possible, but i thought i can could be chief justice of australia. i would write these things down and i'd have this two days of dreaming about what i wanted to do. i must tell you at 78, the options are a lot less. now it's about health and it's about some of the things that i might be able to do. but i'm looking forward, i hope, to a few more years of active life. >> but you still write it down? >> it's gotten very short. >> it's been a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you very much, fareed. >> and we'll be right back. >> do you feel there's a shortage of people with the kind of skills? >> absolutely. critically so. [ male announcer ] this is lawn ranger -- eden prairie, minnesota. in here, the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ nynex guest has made his name by being ahead of the curve. reid hoffman is the co-founder of linkedin and founding owner of paypal and silicon famous startups, before anyone heard of them. his new book is titled "the start up of you." welcome, reid. >> great to be here. >> now, you talk about in this book, really you think of yourself as an entrepreneur. what do you think is different? >> two things. the first thing is everyone should think of themselves as the interpreter of their own life, as the ceo of their own all the things that apply to businesses, you should apply to yourself. career. not just brand but how do you infest in yourself and how do you use business intelligence in order to navigate? what this means in terms of technology is you should be deploying technologies and study using the internet, using linkedin to try to figure out how to invest yourself, build your skills, the connections with people, learn what is going on in industries, and be able to navigate the new world of work. it's changing. globalization and technology is disrupting industries. how do you navigate that to protect the downside, not get laid off in a bad industry and how to get upside in terms of how to break up the opportunities. since technology is the driving force, both behind globalization and behind industry disruption, attuning yourself to what technology change means for you is i think very important. >> so you found in your life that sort of this constantly meeting new people and learning new things, this was crucial? >> yes. i think it's critical for everyone. for example, one of the things that we advocate in the book is think about who you're going out to lunch with and occasionally go out to lunch with someone who is presumably smart, accomplished, maybe two degrees away from you, i think how we first met, and then have a conversation with them where you're learning from each other. like what's going to change in the world? where is the world going? how is technology changing? because then that helps you have the skillset and knowledge to be adaptable and inventive to what you're doing. >> when you look at the competition that the silicon valley faces, do you think the united states can retainits edge in technology? >> generally speaking, the answer is yes. i think that silicon valley continues to be a global leader in the kinds of technology it does. there are a number of policies that we need to be intelligent about, like high immigration, every silicon person beats that drum. because it's really important. you're either going to import the talent or export the job. you know, it's very simple. if you keep the job here, that person then employs restaurants, dry cleaners, accountants, you know, auto mechanics, the whole thing. now, i do think that one of the things is we need to work a little more on some technologies, like manufacturing technology and other kinds of areas. i think we're world class at software but we still have a ways to go -- i think we may not be competitively at the leading edge but i think there's a set of technologies we should be investing in. >> do you think that when you look at the young people who come out today, are they, in terms of, you know, science, technology, energy, dynamism still world class? >> i think there is a group that is world class, which is really good. i think we could happily 10-x that number and be where we want to be. >> you feel there's a shortage of people with the kind of skills needed? >> absolutely. critically so. and in fact, actually, given the technology as part of what sets the drumbeat for the future, i think many more people with their hands on, how they participate in building and understanding, deploying technology. one of the things that i've come to realize is every organization should have a technology strategy. technology is disrupting industry. it's not just, oh, what am i doing to i.t. and what system do i use? it's how is technology changing the game that gets played in my industry, changing the nature of products and the nature of how we can deploy a service? if we use data, how do we use data to be a good business? and so part of that is coding and part of that is understanding how does that fit into a business strategy, into market, into product design? it's all aspects of it in terms of being competent in the modern world. world. >> do you think that all these new changes are moving so fast from the mobile to big data to cloud computing, that it's conceivable that ten years from now that the top technology companies in america and the world will be a totally different set of companies? >> i think that the transformational speed, right, for example, i think in the 20s and 30s, the average ten-year in the s&p 500 was 65 years and the '90s was 10 years. i think that applies to organizations and to individuals. and i think it's personal possible that the transition happens, even at an accelerated rate. what that means for individuals and organizations is that you need to keep investing and reinvesting yourself. in the book, we referred to that as permanent beta. which is, never think of yourself as a complete product. by the way, that should be a company as well as an individual. and always be thinking, how do i invest in the future? how do i invest in the next generation, the next wave? >> when you apply the lessons of the book to yourself, at some level, you're, you know, incredibly successful, fabulously rich, are you done? or do you think of yourself as very much still -- >> i still think of myself as a work in progress. >> what happens next? >> i think part of the modern world is being a curist. i always ask people, what should i know? what questions should i be asking? that's part of how you then adapt to the future. >> reid, a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> and we will be back. [ car braking ] [ male announcer ] brake problems? stop in to meineke today for a free brake inspection and you'll say... my money. my choice. my meineke. april 15th is just three weeks away. that's tax filing day in the u.s. hopefully our american viewers have already filed. but it brings me to my question of the week from the gps challenge, which is what percentage of the u.s. federal budget goes to foreign aid? how many cents out of your dollars? it is, a, 0.5%, b, 1%, c, 10%, or d, 25%? go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the gps challenge and lots of insight and analysis. also, follow us on twitter and facebook. and remember, if you business a show, go to itunes, you can get the audio podcast for free or you can now buy the video version. go directly there by typing itunes.com/fareed into your browser. this week's book of the week is called "paper promises: debt, money, and the new world order." it's by phillip coggan. coggan says our debt addiction will cause governments to fall and will bring about a new world order in which china and the middle east, the lenders have great sway. it's a wonderful, intelligent look at this important subject. now for the last look. the questions have flown across the pacific for years. was china working on its first aircraft carrier or with respect they? was with it a direct challenge to american naval superiority or wasn't it? it turns out china bought three carriers from russia a decade and a half ago with plans to retrofit them. there's the one that's being militarized but what about the other? we don't have to worry about them so much. take the former russian tanker "kiev." it is now filled with software, very soft ware. beds, pillows, comfy chaise lounges and sofas. see, it is now a hotel. and it looks like the kind of place elvis presley might have called home, complete with round beds and mirrored ceilings. there are five suites in all, all of them presidential suites, according to the management. for entertainment, a restaurant serving mostly russian dishes, naturally. and if you peek outside your window, you might see the reenactment of a naval battle. after all the carrier is now the centerpiece of a military theme park, extolling the powers of china's navy. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was, b, around 1% of the united states' federal budget is dedicated to foreign aid. one cent of your dollar. if you answered "d," don't be shamed, you're not alone. the average american thinks that about 25% of the u.s. budget goes to foreign aid. thanks for being part of my program. i'll see you next week. hello, everyone. i'm fredricka whitfield with a check of your top stories. while in south korea, president obama delivers a strong message to pyongyang. if it moves forward with its plan to test fire a long-range missile. >> north korea will achieve nothing but threats or by provocations. north korea knows its obligations and it must take irreversible steps to meet those obligations. on this, the united states and the public of korea are absolutely united. >> north korea says it's planning to launch a rocket-powered satellite next month, not a missile. south korea says, regardless, the technology being used is the violation of a u.n. security council resolution. and two weeks after a u.s. soldier allegedly kills at least 16 afghans, the united states government makes a payment of $10,000 to each of the afghan families. a u.s. official says the money is not compensation, but is meant to help the victims. sergeant robert bales is charged in the kandahar killing. all of them civilians, most of the victims children. i just want to say to the people of louisiana, thank you very much. you have come through and come through in a big way. rick santorum easily beats mitt romney in louisiana's republican primary, but santorum still trails romney in the overall delegate count by nearly a two-to-one margin. and one of the

Transcripts For CNNW Fareed Zakaria GPS 20120325

also, james wolfensohn has many claims to fame. yes, he ran the world bank but he hired paul volcker when he started his own investment firm. i'll talk to him about the global economy and more. later, an inside look at the silicon valley facebook, paypal, facebook, zynga. reid hoffman has been at the ground floor of all of them. and why is one of america's friends, india, friends with one of its sworn enemies, iran? playground politics are at large. i'll explain. but first, here's my take. we're going to hear a lot of polarized rhetoric over the next few months. the republicans and democrats will seem to disagree about everything. but there is one huge and important area where there is a possibility, a possibility of bipartisan action. that's tax reform. most americans, republicans and democrats, dislike the tax code. their right to do so. america has what is arguably the world's most complex tax code. the federal code plus irs rulings is now 70,000 pages long. the code itself is 16,000 pages. the state of france has only 1,909, only 10% of ours. and then there are others that have innovated and moved to a flat tax with considerable success. you have to understand, complexity equals corruption. when john mccain was still a raging reformer, he used to point out that the tax code was the foundation for the tax code of corruption. see, vast amounts of cash for campaigns and in return, they get favorable exemptions or loopholes in the tax code. in other countries, this sort of bribery takes place under bridges and in cash and in brown envelopes. in america, it is institutionalized and legal but it is the same thing. cash to politicians in return for favorable treatment from the government. the u.s. tax system is not simply corrupt. it is corrupt in a deceptive manner that has degraded the entire system of american government. congress is able to funnel money in perpetuity to its favorite funders through the tax code without anyone realizing it. for those who despair at the role of money in government. the simplest way to get it out is to remove the prize that congress gives away, preferential tax treatment. almost no exemptions does that. the simplest fix to our tax code would be to lower the income tax dramatically, and instead raise revenues through a national sales tax or a value-added tax. the u.s. is the only rich country in the world without a national sales tax. germany has one at 19%, britain at 20%, korea at 10%. what's the appeal of the consumption tax? the government loses several hundred billions of dollars a year to tax fraud. this is much harder to pull off with a consumption tax. second, it provides the government with a more stable source of revenue than income taxes. income taxes flux greatly. third, americans consume too much, often using credit and leverage to do so. a consumption tax would moderate this behavior. government will always get less of behavior taxes and more of what it subsidizes. ironically you the heavy reliance on income taxes makes the american system more progressive than those in europe. the federal government gets about 43% of its total tax revenues from taxes on individual incomes and profits compared with only 29% in germany and 22% in france. the balance for france and germany comes from the v.a.t., which is highly regressive. one recent oecd study showed that the top 10% in america pay a larger share of total taxes. 45.1% than do the top 10% in any of the 24 countries examined. in germany, they pay 31% of the taxes and in france, 28%. the best thing about tax reform is that it kills corruption. so if you ask me what kind of tax code i'm in favor of, i'm in favor of any new tax code that fills one requirement, it should fit on two pages. let's get started. if 2011 was the year of revolutionary change, maybe 2012 will be the year of electoral change. 26 nations go to the polls this week to vote for their president, prime minister, punching bag in chief. that includes four of the five u.n. security council members, the united states, of course, and also france and russia where mr. putin, not surprisingly, got the nod and china has a big leadership change coming, too. this represents 40% of the world's gdp. what does all of this potential change mean amidst all of the other challenges in the world? i have a great panel to talk about this. anne-marie slaughter and richard haas are both former members of the state department. on the other side of the story, bruce boinasketa is professor of politics at new york university. welcome. richard, when you were in government, would you find that there was an election? let's say sarkozy loses. will it make a difference? >> actually, it will. mr. sarkozy is running as though he wants to change france into germany and given the situation in europe right now, this might be an election that does matter. mr. hollande would implement 10 or 20% of what he's saying, it would make a difference. it would matter more than an election in a mature democracy would matter. >> anne-marie? >> i think he might want to do all of those things but i'm more worried about friends in german politics. i think the eu depends on france and germany and france and germany depend on the eu continuing. >> the issues you're talking about is hollande is proposing first a very, very large role for the state than france has? >> yes. >> 75% tax rates. and also proposing that the french get out of the business of this partnership with germany in forcing discipline on southern europe? >> yes. >> you think that they will have to continuing doing that but you're worried the germans won't be able to continue to do that? >> yes. the real concern is that germany decides it doesn't want to play the central role it has played in the eu, which has been the banker and the country that often makes sacrifices for greater political union and german voters are tired. it's in germany's economic interest to do that but politically, that's not as sure a thing as it has been. >> bruce, you do a lot of modeling for the cia, for the state department, for other governments. if you were to try to construct a model, do you think that -- about whether the euro is going to survive or collapse through this period of crisis, what would you say? >> i think the euro zone is going to likely survive for at least the next few years. longer term, that's a different story. i think richard is a little optimistic about the possibilities in france. >> you think sarkozy will likely win? >> i think he will likely win and i wouldn't think it will make a big difference who wins. they can move a little. they can't move far. i think we should note, with regard to france, that people thought when president obama was president-elect obama, that he was going to have policies were going to be radically different than george w. bush and on the domestic front he certainly has and in some parts of the foreign policy he has. but mostly, we're still in guantanamo. we're still in afghanistan. there hasn't been this radical shift. >> well, we're pulling out of afghanistan and domestically, hang on. we've had financial reform, we've had health care. not of the scale he proposed, but those have been bigger domestic changes that any other government -- >> there's one place that you have to admit, anne, significant continuity, vladimir putin becoming president -- i assume you don't think there will be much change in russian foreign policy? >> i'm not so sure. putin was elected, everybody knew he was going to be elected. that's not different. >> but he's already running the country. >> yes, he was already running the country and he clearly imagines another possible two terms. i do think he's going to be under different constraints. i think he is going to be facing either having to be much more repressive, really shutting down the opposition in a way to now that he has not done or he's going to have to start reforming in the way he says he wants to do. his own account is, i stabilized the country, i increased the national income, we're now growing, we're now strong. now i can turn to sort of a more orderly transition to democracy. that's his story. that would be a way out with -- given the political pressures, but it's also possible, certainly given his background, that that's all talk, in which case he's really going to have to tighten the screws on opposition and then we might really see a lot of turbulence. >> do you think that putin is a person with whom the united states can continue to deal and that he will be a likely cooperative partner on some issues like iran? because there's this whole idea that the obama administration has, which is we're going to reset relationships with russia, not because we love them but because we need for a bunch of things and we can establish a good working relationship. do you think that's likely? >> i think the administration was right to try the reset. it's probably now necessary to reset the reset. putin is a spoiler. when people face the kinds of choices that anne-marie described, i think likely he goes towards repression rather than opening, the tendency is to use foreign policy a bit to vent and distract and my hunch is that putin will be less of a partner than he will be going forward, which is not much of a partnership. i think this will be a rough relationship. we're not talking about going back to the cold war but essentially the united states is going to have to attack this without much help from russia. it might mean less and less role for the united nations. if china and russia are not there as partners in the u.n., increasingly multilateralism is going to have to be a little narrower without the formality of the u.n. >> well, in broader terms, there is a difference between china and russia. china is a country that wants to modernize. it has a a parochial selfish interest that it wants to guard. the russians, on the other hand, are the only other that is an oil state. russia benefits from national tension. they don't benefit from the international tensions being solved. >> i think that's exactly right. the chinese benefits from tensions being solved because it gives them cheaper oil and they need the oil and energy. the russian benefit from the price being high. and betting on what putin will do, if the price of oil is high, he will oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. then he will become more oppressive. and it the price drops substantially, then probably liberalize because that would be the solution. the likelihood that oil is going to drop is not real. when we come back, we're going to talk about iran. and we are back with anne-marie slaughter and richard haass. russia benefits from crisis, the price of oil goes up and china on the other hand benefits from international tensions being reduced and oil prices going down. but you thought that they don't quite behave that way? >> there's a gap between what you think chinese national interest would dictate and what chinese behavior is. china ought to be there shoulder to shoulder partnering with us to get iran to behave. the last thing china wants is the straits to be closed and a war which would drive the prices to 3, $400 a barrel. they are a major importer. china is not there with us. they are essentially sitting back and they are not putting pressure on iran much with sanctions or anything else or even with north korea. >> do they care if iran gets a nuke? >> well, i'm not sure they care if iran gets a nuke. but, also, this is short-term interests over long-term interests because in the short term they can be cut deal with iran and get cheaper oil and actually benefit from the fact that everybody else is sanctioning iran. >> the longer term could be three or four months. they could find themselves where china has to do a rebalancing, they have a leadership transition and growth is coming down. they've got a lot to deal with on their plate. >> suppose you were to try and construct again using game material. win-win solution that is not a war. is there a negotiated outcome? because we're having negotiations. what i'm struck by is nobody wants to put out what is the solution? what is the kind of inspection regime that would be enough to survive the world but not so humiliating to the iranians that they would accept. >> we have a problem similar to north korea. in the sense that in both cases, we have a very close ally that feels threatened by their neighbor. we have this hostile neighbor that feels threatened and needs to deter. in the case of iran, therefore, i think the solution is for our government to decide, do we care more about the nuclear issue or do we care more about regime change? if there was a constructive regime change, that might solve the nuclear problem. but our pressures on iran may be exacerbating the nuclear danger because of the fears that we are contemplating regime change. >> so you're saying the more you threaten the regime with regime change, the more the regime will say, hey, i need to buy insurance. >> you're right. they need the capability to deter. >> i don't buy that. the iranian nuclear program has been in business a long time. they want to use their nuclear capability to bolster their role in the region. what we want to do -- i think there is a negotiation here. i think potentially there is a negotiation which says there has to be intrusive inspections, legitimately suspect facilities and have to be real ceilings on what it is you're allowed to do and keep based on what you've done in the past. i don't think we try to get iran completely out of the nuclear business. we don't humiliate them. but i think there's a potential deal. but we've only got a couple of months to do it. i think what the israelis are very clearly signaling is that unless there is serious progress and they are persuaded that they are not using that tactically to get stuff done, they are going to either act or they will act unless they have confidence that we will act before our window closes. so i think we've only actually got a few months to show that negotiations are really going to bear fruit. i believe the israelis are more likely to attack. >> most of the conversation is about concessions by them. it seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our european friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that iran claims it needs. they pay for it. they pay the price up to what they are spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. as long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. as long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy. >> i don't think it's going to work because they obviously want to do some of this themselves. a lot of the conversation today has been about politics. you just recently had elections in iran. the so called principalists around the supreme leader. this can go one of two leaders in april. either against this backdrop where they are willing to show no compromise before their elections, you could see iranian flexibility, maybe they are worried about military attack, they are feeling the heat of these sanctions or just the opposite. they've decided they can brazen it out. they don't think the united states will make good on their threats or they might still be in better shape because they can throw the -- any inspectors out, there will be a rally around the regime effect inside the country. we don't know. but i think this spring is going to be critical because either negotiations are going to show some promise or not. and if not, israel has to decide whether it trusts the united states to act or whether israel is going to act itself. so sometime in 2012, this issue is going to come to a head and it's going to dominate the world, i believe this year. >> all right. the thing i worry about is the point you made, they have to make concessions but we have to make concessions. i only say this because i can't think of any time in history where a regime under pressure has just cried, i surrender. >> i agree. >> they are unlikely, particularly within divisions in their leadership. second of all, this is a hard time for us to make concessions. we have politics, too. and this is going to play out against the backdrop of an election year. >> and obama has space to go right but he has no space to go left on this issue. if he were to start negotiations with iran direct and make some kind of concessions. >> no, but talks are restarting. i think he's made it clear that he's willing to go to war. the country doesn't want war overall and if he can now say, look, we are keeping pressure on, we've kept the military option on the table. we're going to prove that diplomacy can work. i think he's got some room. >> do you think that's possible? >> he's going to be attacked. if he goes in that direction. but he can still do it under our constitution and under our process. no one can stop him. congress can't stop him. the republican candidates can't stop him but he's only got a couple of months. not, again, because of our politics. it's because of the israeli politics. >> and we've got to stop there. thank you very much. up next, the story of a country that seems to be everyone's best friend. its buddies with america and israel just as it is with iran. what country is it? we'll tell you when we come back. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about the cookie-cutter retirement advice ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you get at some places. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 they say you have to do this, have that, invest here ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you know what? ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you can't create a retirement plan based on ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 a predetermined script. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to understand you and your goals... ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...so together we can find real-life answers for your ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 real-life retirement. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and let's write a script based on your life story. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 [ kareem ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes since i was a kid. [ mike ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to 35 thousand feet. these engines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ mike ] it's gonna fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monster fire up. [ jaronda ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ tom ] i would love to see this thing fly. [ kareem ] it's a dream, honestly. there it is. oh, wow. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] [ tom ] i wanna see that again. ♪ and now for our "what in the world" segment. i have a story for you. it's a story about a country that is america's friend, israeli's friend and yet it is also iran's friend. amid all of the talk of an israeli strike on iran, what is the country that stays friends with everyone? what in the world is going on? the country is india and it's been criticized in america for continuing to trade with iran despite coordinated sanctions on tehran. an article ran in "the wall street journal" that said they are calling it the mullah's last best friend. they have israeli defense is this, happens to be among the world's largest consumers and importers. the type of crude best suited for india's needs happens to be iranian's oil. there have been reports that the two countries reached a trade agreement to circumvent sanctions. iran can't trade in dollars so it is selling oil to india for rupp business and bartered goods instead. but there are also geopolitical concerns. india lives in a rough neighborhood. pakistan has for decades believed that it needed to limit india's influence in the region, particularly in afghanistan. so, islamabad has supported the taliban against the indian-backed northern alliance. they have always sided with india and its northern alliance friends. now outside of what it views as core interests, india is nowadays inactive on foreign policy. india has rarely been a force for good in the region or around the world mainly because it has not been much of a force. when the maldives had a coup, new delhi remained impassive. and so on with other crises in the region in bangladesh and sri lanka and more. compared to the clout it wants to have, new delhi has really only paid minor attention to its policy. india, with a population of 1.2 billion fewer diplomats than the population of new zealand, with the population of just 4 million people. americans stand to believe that all good things go together. india and america will have foreign policies, the friends and enemies. india, of course, is located in a different place. it has different interests. indians think that they can be free writers, exploit the stability of the current setup. but for the world's largest democracy that is an unworthy mission. india does have a tryst with destiny and it isn't just to buy cheap oil from whomever and damn the consequence and we will be back. >> the most important thing that people want in developing countries, like in our country, is a job. they want to be able to support their families. [♪...] >> announcer: with nothing but his computer, an identity thief is able to use your information to open a bank account in order to make your money his money. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock, the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. that was me the day i learned i had to start insulin for my type 2 diabetes. me... thinking my only option was the vial and syringe dad used. and me... discovering once-daily levemir flexpen. flexpen is prefilled. doesn't need refrigeration for up to 42 days. no drawing from a vial. dial the exact dose. inject by pushing a button. flexpen is insulin delivery my way. levemir is long acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not take if your blood sugar is too low. tell your health care provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. with flexpen, say good night to vial and syringe. ask your doctor about levemir flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com. only three people have ever served two terms as president of the world bank. my next guest is one of those men, james wolfensohn. he's a native australian by birth, but he has spent much of his career in finance and consulting here in the united states. he joins me now on the global public square. thank you. >> thank you. >> so tell me, after a long life in the private sector, you went to the world bank and what was the -- what was your biggest take away inside -- in term of doing something that was often seen by people in the private sector as giving away money, that the foreign aid is wasted, that you can't really get growth in that way. what did you think? >> well, i went to the world bank because when i was there, there were 6 billion people in the world and 5 billion lived in the developing world served by the world bank and it was already clear to me that the future was going to be in the developing world. that the billion people in the rich world, maybe in 40 years, would be 1 billion 400 million. but people in the developing world would grow by several billion. so the waves towards developing countries was very clear and the fact that in those days people would look at them as the poor countries and not give them any great economic importance. and while i was there, in the year 2000, the momentum shifted. and all of a sudden people said, what is china doing, what is brazil doing? and of course, i was there during that period when we saw the leaders in the economic world starting to come from the developing world. but the other aspect of the world bank's work are the people that are left behind. the billions of people that, frankly, don't have enough to eat, have no real future, but who are the weight of the world. and the world bank deals with those two issues. so i thought they couldn't be a more interesting place to go and when i was offered it by president clinton, i said immediately i'd love to do it. >> and what did you find in terms of the aid programs? you know, there's a very standard -- not just conservative lamen,t but a lot of private sector people say, look, all of this foreign aid is wasted. that's not how you get growth. >> well, don't believe that foreign aid necessarily gets you growth. what i think it can get you is education of the local people, it can get infrastructure, it can set a framework in which the private sector can operate, but it was never my belief that something like the world bank could introduce industrial projects and be responsible alone for employment. the most important thing that people want in developing countries, like in our country, is a job. they want to be able to support their families. they want to improve their lifestyle. and that is at the epicenter of what the bank tries to do. >> do you feel as though things are getting better everywhere or are they worse? how do you describe -- you know, good governance, corruption, is africa moving forward, is asia moving forward? >> look, i think there is progress. i started a campaign against what i call the cancer of corruption 15 years ago. and interestingly enough, before i talked about the cancer of corruption, no bank president had ever mentioned corruption because many of the shareholders in the bank came from corrupt countries. i think they are afraid of offending them. but the point is that it is now on the table and i think that there is some improvement. but i think the battle is far from won. i think it will take a generation, it will take more education of young people and then i think you've got a chance on the corruption issue. but i think what you need way beyond that is appropriate education, health care, a chance to develop the human -- the human capital that you have in these countries and it has to start with education and that i think there is some movement forward. >> how do you think obama is doing on the economy in general? >> well, i am not as great a critic as i think some are because i think he inherited a terrible miss. whether he could have done a bit better, i don't know. i think what is needed now is really some clear action and it's unlikely that we will get that action in an electoral year because he can come up with a program. the republicans can come up with a program and we all know what they are talking about is really dreams. they're not going to get them through now and it will be dependent on what happens in the election. but i think it's important for the nation to understand that we've borrowed too much and i think neither party disagrees that we've spent too much in recent years. and i think the simpson-bowles report, which came out and didn't have a lot of presence yet, first of all, is a very fine analysis and came up with what i thought was a pragmatic approach. i which we could get a debate on that but it's unlikely between now and the election. >> you've been a democrat but independent-minded. >> uh-huh. >> will you support president obama in his re-election? >> if you come into the voting booth with me, fareed, i will show you my voting slip. but at this moment i think i probably would. but i'd like to see who the republican candidate is and i'd like to listen to them. i think this period between now and the end of the year, particularly between now and the debate, between the president and the candidate, will be very important, certainly in the past i've been democratic. >> but you must know mitt romney. you know everyone. >> i barely know him. i barely know him. >> all right. final question. you are almost 80 years old. you are an olympic fencer. you taught yourself how to play the cello. what is the secret to managing a life in which you are able to do so many things with such distinction? do you take a special protein powder? >> i do that. but i also have for years, at the beginning of every year, since i was 15, written down things i'd like to do. >> that year? >> that year. >> and, you know, if i've wanted to be president of the united states, that wasn't possible, but i thought i can could be chief justice of australia. i would write these things down and i'd have this two days of dreaming about what i wanted to do. i must tell you at 78, the options are a lot less. now it's about health and it's about some of the things that i might be able to do. but i'm looking forward, i hope, to a few more years of active life. >> but you still write it down? >> it's gotten very short. >> it's been a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you very much, fareed. >> and we'll be right back. >> do you feel there's a shortage of people with the kind of skills? >> absolutely. critically so. [ male announcer ] this is lawn ranger -- eden prairie, minnesota. in here, the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ nynex guest has made his name by being ahead of the curve. reid hoffman is the co-founder of linkedin and founding owner of paypal and silicon famous startups, before anyone heard of them. his new book is titled "the start up of you." welcome, reid. >> great to be here. >> now, you talk about in this book, really you think of yourself as an entrepreneur. what do you think is different? >> two things. the first thing is everyone should think of themselves as the interpreter of their own life, as the ceo of their own all the things that apply to businesses, you should apply to yourself. career. not just brand but how do you infest in yourself and how do you use business intelligence in order to navigate? what this means in terms of technology is you should be deploying technologies and study using the internet, using linkedin to try to figure out how to invest yourself, build your skills, the connections with people, learn what is going on in industries, and be able to navigate the new world of work. it's changing. globalization and technology is disrupting industries. how do you navigate that to protect the downside, not get laid off in a bad industry and how to get upside in terms of how to break up the opportunities. since technology is the driving force, both behind globalization and behind industry disruption, attuning yourself to what technology change means for you is i think very important. >> so you found in your life that sort of this constantly meeting new people and learning new things, this was crucial? >> yes. i think it's critical for everyone. for example, one of the things that we advocate in the book is think about who you're going out to lunch with and occasionally go out to lunch with someone who is presumably smart, accomplished, maybe two degrees away from you, i think how we first met, and then have a conversation with them where you're learning from each other. like what's going to change in the world? where is the world going? how is technology changing? because then that helps you have the skillset and knowledge to be adaptable and inventive to what you're doing. >> when you look at the competition that the silicon valley faces, do you think the united states can retainits edge in technology? >> generally speaking, the answer is yes. i think that silicon valley continues to be a global leader in the kinds of technology it does. there are a number of policies that we need to be intelligent about, like high immigration, every silicon person beats that drum. because it's really important. you're either going to import the talent or export the job. you know, it's very simple. if you keep the job here, that person then employs restaurants, dry cleaners, accountants, you know, auto mechanics, the whole thing. now, i do think that one of the things is we need to work a little more on some technologies, like manufacturing technology and other kinds of areas. i think we're world class at software but we still have a ways to go -- i think we may not be competitively at the leading edge but i think there's a set of technologies we should be investing in. >> do you think that when you look at the young people who come out today, are they, in terms of, you know, science, technology, energy, dynamism still world class? >> i think there is a group that is world class, which is really good. i think we could happily 10-x that number and be where we want to be. >> you feel there's a shortage of people with the kind of skills needed? >> absolutely. critically so. and in fact, actually, given the technology as part of what sets the drumbeat for the future, i think many more people with their hands on, how they participate in building and understanding, deploying technology. one of the things that i've come to realize is every organization should have a technology strategy. technology is disrupting industry. it's not just, oh, what am i doing to i.t. and what system do i use? it's how is technology changing the game that gets played in my industry, changing the nature of products and the nature of how we can deploy a service? if we use data, how do we use data to be a good business? and so part of that is coding and part of that is understanding how does that fit into a business strategy, into market, into product design? it's all aspects of it in terms of being competent in the modern world. world. >> do you think that all these new changes are moving so fast from the mobile to big data to cloud computing, that it's conceivable that ten years from now that the top technology companies in america and the world will be a totally different set of companies? >> i think that the transformational speed, right, for example, i think in the 20s and 30s, the average ten-year in the s&p 500 was 65 years and the '90s was 10 years. i think that applies to organizations and to individuals. and i think it's personal possible that the transition happens, even at an accelerated rate. what that means for individuals and organizations is that you need to keep investing and reinvesting yourself. in the book, we referred to that as permanent beta. which is, never think of yourself as a complete product. by the way, that should be a company as well as an individual. and always be thinking, how do i invest in the future? how do i invest in the next generation, the next wave? >> when you apply the lessons of the book to yourself, at some level, you're, you know, incredibly successful, fabulously rich, are you done? or do you think of yourself as very much still -- >> i still think of myself as a work in progress. >> what happens next? >> i think part of the modern world is being a curist. i always ask people, what should i know? what questions should i be asking? that's part of how you then adapt to the future. >> reid, a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >> and we will be back. [ car braking ] [ male announcer ] brake problems? stop in to meineke today for a free brake inspection and you'll say... my money. my choice. my meineke. april 15th is just three weeks away. that's tax filing day in the u.s. hopefully our american viewers have already filed. but it brings me to my question of the week from the gps challenge, which is what percentage of the u.s. federal budget goes to foreign aid? how many cents out of your dollars? it is, a, 0.5%, b, 1%, c, 10%, or d, 25%? go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the gps challenge and lots of insight and analysis. also, follow us on twitter and facebook. and remember, if you business a show, go to itunes, you can get the audio podcast for free or you can now buy the video version. go directly there by typing itunes.com/fareed into your browser. this week's book of the week is called "paper promises: debt, money, and the new world order." it's by phillip coggan. coggan says our debt addiction will cause governments to fall and will bring about a new world order in which china and the middle east, the lenders have great sway. it's a wonderful, intelligent look at this important subject. now for the last look. the questions have flown across the pacific for years. was china working on its first aircraft carrier or with respect they? was with it a direct challenge to american naval superiority or wasn't it? it turns out china bought three carriers from russia a decade and a half ago with plans to retrofit them. there's the one that's being militarized but what about the other? we don't have to worry about them so much. take the former russian tanker "kiev." it is now filled with software, very soft ware. beds, pillows, comfy chaise lounges and sofas. see, it is now a hotel. and it looks like the kind of place elvis presley might have called home, complete with round beds and mirrored ceilings. there are five suites in all, all of them presidential suites, according to the management. for entertainment, a restaurant serving mostly russian dishes, naturally. and if you peek outside your window, you might see the reenactment of a naval battle. after all the carrier is now the centerpiece of a military theme park, extolling the powers of china's navy. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was, b, around 1% of the united states' federal budget is dedicated to foreign aid. one cent of your dollar. if you answered "d," don't be shamed, you're not alone. the average american thinks that about 25% of the u.s. budget goes to foreign aid. thanks for being part of my program. i'll see you next week. hello, everyone. i'm fredricka whitfield with a check of your top stories. while in south korea, president obama delivers a strong message to pyongyang. if it moves forward with its plan to test fire a long-range missile. >> north korea will achieve nothing but threats or by provocations. north korea knows its obligations and it must take irreversible steps to meet those obligations. on this, the united states and the public of korea are absolutely united. >> north korea says it's planning to launch a rocket-powered satellite next month, not a missile. south korea says, regardless, the technology being used is the violation of a u.n. security council resolution. and two weeks after a u.s. soldier allegedly kills at least 16 afghans, the united states government makes a payment of $10,000 to each of the afghan families. a u.s. official says the money is not compensation, but is meant to help the victims. sergeant robert bales is charged in the kandahar killing. all of them civilians, most of the victims children. i just want to say to the people of louisiana, thank you

Transcripts For CSPAN C-SPAN Weekend 20101128

>> yes. >> with all due respect to the gentleman and his question, the reality of why we have to fight wars -- my own father was a veteran of world war ii, korea, in vietnam. i have been a veteran of 32 years. i believe if we have a strong military we have a lesser chance of going to war. because of individuals who will drive situations to appoint where, if one wants to preserve the peace, one has to be willing to go to war -- you have to understand the nature of warfare, the way you must fight it, and that way you can determine better those who will drive us to that point. >> thank you very much. next question. please state your first name. >> hello. read that the afghanistan war is the longest war the united states has been involved in. i do not know if that statistic is true or not. it started in 2001 after 9/11. i was wondering if this was due in part in fact to these new methods of war, like using robots. it is not personal combat. it is more of remote thing. >> the simple answer is no. that is not why the wars are going on so long. in many cases, the robotics we are using on the ground are actually giving our soldiers and our folks -- and he may not be aware -- there are about 14,000 navy personnel on the ground in afghanistan and iraq. many are unaware we have so many on the ground over there. robotics in many cases, the new development of some of that, is because it allows us to have additional surveillance and reconnaissance, whether they are weapon last, we can use those for surveillance and reconnaissance. it gives us information that would help us to understand where the non-combatants are. >> were you trying to comment on this as well? >> it is a complicated question. i think you are right. certainly, this is one of the longest -- officially, you know -- longest conflict we have been involved in. vietnam is the only other one that comes to mind of a similar links. yes, it is possible for these nasty counterinsurgency wars to drag on for much longer. i do not think it has anything to do with a particular tactic serb weapons, but the nature of the intractable conflicts that we're trying to resolve to some satisfactory level. i think we will see more of these ugly, dirty little wars as opposed to huge conventional conflict between nation states that people are willing the heck out of one another. that does not happen in these kinds of things. what to do about that and how to respond to prepare our troops for those, indeed in the very way suggested, why it should we not be talking about ending these conflicts? if we get people to end or resolve conflicts according to legal procedures, the same way that you argue with domestic criminals. it would be much better to adjudicate disputes then to take the law into their own hands. we do need the ability to resort to force, sometimes to enforce the law. sometimes to protect vulnerable people. you are asking to change the human situation, if you pursue too far that line of thought. i do not know anyone who would not like that transformation to occur. >> brief comment by professor sharkey. >> i would have to about to your superior wisdom as to the cause of the length of the war of -- in iraq -- >> afghanistan. " sorry. afghanistan. i do not think it is due to the robots either. i did notice that what is happening in iraq is the greater use of drones. one of the big darker projects is called project a vulture. it has just been awarded to boeing for developing a uav that can carry a 5000-pound payload. whether you would call that war or not -- i can see the end here is you fight the war, you pull out your troops, but you leave the uav's constantly overhead. whether you are prepared to call that were or not, i do not know. >> i think, ironically, one should look at the weaker party in the conflict to see why it takes so long. look at the methods that they use. improvised device is that not everyone can produce. as long as the weaker party can use types of tactics which do not involve sophisticated weaponry, but involve the primitive way of getting them done, then the war will continue. >> yes. please step forward. >> my name is norman robbins. you have alluded several times to be a threshold of war in the article 51 on self-defense. i would like to ask when -- when, if ever, pre-emptive war is justified. we had our nose bloodied with the pre-emptive war in iraq or it turned out the major cause, the w m.d., was false. there was a lot of media that led to democratic support. i see that same situation with respect to iran, where even thinking about getting a capability, a lot of words like that, in some minds, it is justification for an impact now as a pre-emptive. so, my question -- what should be the true justification for pre-emptive war, knowing full well, as many of you certainly acknowledge, the great death and destruction it will bring about? >> i think david first and -- >> thank you. that is a really good question. there is nothing new about the challenge of pre-emption. in the 12th century, a writer tried to work out when it was justified to use preemptive force. he used the example of an ambush. you are about to be ambushed. they have not done anything yet. but if you attack them, you are the aggressor. if you are about to be ambushed, but you take the first action, because you discover the ambush, you are still acting in self- defense. that is the key. it is not a new idea. that is the key. are you acting in self-defense? or are you imagine or predicting a threat without any capability , intention, without the eminence? are you saying could this be a threat for us? therefore we are going to eliminate it? preemption, which can be legitimate, which is when you act before the threat manifests itself in a way that is going to hurt you or innocent actors -- as long as you can get that balance right, it is not an aggressive war. it is getting that balance right. it is not simple. this is prevention rather than preemption. the most simple formula that you can set a which one it is -- getting the balance right is absolutely essential. >> professor lucas? >> there are two issues. one is the cause for war. or the cause for using force. put it that way. the other is deciding whether to do it or not. he may decide to use force, but this side you have no jurisdiction to do so. -- but this side you have no jurisdiction to do so -- but decide you have no jurisdiction to do so. there were ample reasons to be concerned about iraq and its leadership. iran is building nuclear weapons. certainly, the israeli attacks on the iraqi nuclear reactor under construction -- there was a serious amount of mr.. the question is always one of jurisdiction. article 51 grants nations who are signatories to the un charter, nothing in that charter will abrogate their individual right to self-defense. i believe that is justification for the israeli strike in 1981, i think it was. the problem we faced in iraq is, we had moved from a case of something like an ambush to something like suspicion that an ambush was under way without much certainty. one would have wished for something like the analog of an arrest warrant. a procedure where you take your evidence to the judge in some reasonably impartial party looks at it and says, yes, you have a case or no, you do not have the case. that is what we were missing in that instance. i think if we were talking about preventive war, war is meant to interdict and prevent criminal conspiracies, we need another way of the international community coping with that in deciding not only there is a cause, but who will be delegated and whether or not the cause has risen to the level of, you know, a fair and reasonable procedure which we just do not have in the u.n. could be dealt ballot -- could be developed to authorize the protection of citizens living under the rule of law in those cases. >> i disagree with david. there has to be full consideration. there's the new circumstances of iran that you mentioned. first, what you gain should justify the harm you cause to innocent parties. now, you can try to draw the picture of what you came on one end and what is going to be lost on the other end. or you can take damage as if is damage to your own people. the most difficult consideration is the other side. is it the last resort? that is the most difficult question to answer. because you have to convince yourself in a morally justified way that you have already exhausted all other means to solve this problem. when do you reach the conclusion? it is very difficult. it is very difficult. so if you think about iran, i think some elements are there, but last resort is in the dark. >> thank you. next question, please. >> hello. my name is karen. my question relates -- my name is karen. my question relates to -- my name is darin. my question relates to the conflict between the cost base. -- two states. we have all these situations that arise, insurgencies or counterinsurgencies where we are justified in using civilian casualties' or dropping bombs on a bonkers. damages in afghanistan are now judged to be incidental. or -- civil warfare where is ok for us to use chemical weapons and also the treatment of, you know, combatants, enemy combatants that goes against the geneva convention and the rights of human dignity. we've created a situation where the ethics of war no longer apply. is it time that we imagine the definition of warfare to include all these different circumstances so at the least, even if we do not know, even if we advocate that killing is ok and killing civilians is ok, that we have expanded our definition of warfare to describe these other situations said the ethical criteria applied. insurgencies, civil wars, a counter-terrorism efforts, things like that. >> interesting. david? >> war applies to armed conflict, not just recognize the legal definition of war, which is two states. but you have got it right. not declarenty's do war on each other. why? because it is a legal. declaring war would be illegal. that would be a crime of aggression. honestly. >> ok. >> armed conflict is war in the narrow, legal sense. it is war. it is war in the commonly- understood sense. it is armed conflict. i know the people are waiting to come in. you will find the martins' clause in all 20 -- 20th- century armed conflict. just because it is not written down in all lawbook does not mean you can do it. in a nut shell, it says covering everything that applies to war. if we have not, rely on the ethical principles. if it is a violent assault on the conscience of humankind, just because the law does not say it is a legal doesn't mean you can do it. it is wrong. the martins claus, you'll find that in the geneva convention. it just a paragraph. and it says just because it is not written down does not mean it is ok. >> if there is a vacuum in the law, that does not mean you can fill it with anything you like. you still have to appear to ethical principles. would anyone else to jump in with a question? >> he said everything. you hear about policing operations nowadays. somehow i never get this thing about policing operations, but -- because policing has separate rules to warfare. if someone is holding the hostages, you cannot bomb the building. police are much more careful about collateral damage. i do not think they are allowed collateral damage at all. there should be different sets of rules for policing operations then you have a war. >> i would have a very short answer to your question. regarding pre-emption -- you do not know what is your adversaries and tension. intention.y's even perfidy is always possible in human relations. so, which do you presume when you're in responsibility and you are the political leadership, you know? there is a mortal risk at stake. so, we come back to one of your first questions. what addional risk should we take? not only ourselves, but in all life at large? it is obvious that if the answer is we would never take any kind of such a risk, then, well, it is a concept of political community which emerges and we are driven to this particular spot. ok. so. it seems to me that when we still corner on the problems of war, we should think that before being cornered, we should have thought more about peace when it was possible, and maybe a was always possible -- and maybe it was always possible. >> so you would say we mustn't give up on last resort? or jump too quickly to last resorts? >> yes. in order to build trust, probably, we would have to acknowledge some kind of good faith. i mean, probably your adversary would want to harm you, ok? i presume some kind of good faith means the understanding that your adversary is not always necessarily supremely on just -- unjust to people or leadership and it has some kind of idea -- you can disagree with that, ok. and yet, your adversary is not acting only on bad intentions as a gangster or an evildoer. this happen sometimes, but not always. and so, we have this tragic truism. it is the ideas of justice, which are many, and so we are getting out of the problem with the story of justice, i you know? so, the problem is diplomacy. can we figure out some kind of road where it is perfectly we can make, sitting together, very imperfectly, this idea of justice, or is that compromise by its self unjust? this is the choice to be made. compromise or not compromising -- not only in domestic policy, but also in world policy. >> there are a lot of elements in that, and the point about the potential need to compromise in some cases, but also your point about respecting different views of justice and not going into a conflict with the assumption that your enemy does not have a concept of justice, even if it differs. >> it could be dehumanizing for everybody, not assuming that we all refer to some same ideal of justice. the all-embracing ideal of justice. but the fact is, we see this quite well in domestic policy. we are sensitive, more sensitive to some dimension of justice. i will talk about dimensions of justice, dimensions of time, the dimensions of space, you know? when i listen to your debates, you talk so particularly. is working.lic it is not bad, you know? [laughter] it says to me that, well, everything is true, you know? this is some kind of tragedy, you know? in life. i do not want to be too blunt. >> no, thank you for your thoughts. next, roger. >> yes. my name is roger. i teach courses about the -- disadvantages of new technology. i do not know whether this story is true or not, but six weeks ago on national public radio, the former cia agent was interviewed who was still active with the state department. he said that two months ago, and armored drone aircraft was taken over from signals coming up from televisa, -- from tel aviv, and the aircraft was going out for miles to -- believe it or not -- a topless beach. where the aircraft circled for hours, at any the cameras at the women. it was later found that it was a 17-year-old and 19-year-old hacker who had done this. true or not, when we fire weapons by remote signals, especially if they are armed, what is the likelihood of advanced hackers being able to take over these weapons systems? correct i feel like this is a question for you, noel. >> george has already mentioned the cyber warfare. a remote controlled machine is particularly susceptible -- i do not know about that particular instance. i do not know about it. i do know the taliban were finding film footage from the drones on their laptops. they bought the program for $10. that was all its debt. one of the big drives at the moment, not discussed here, in all the united states military plans have been too good to autonomous systems which are not able to be attacked in the same way. and they are not able to be jammed either. to me, that is worse, because you have machines that do not discriminate between combatants and civilians at all and you use those. there was talk about having a human on the loop that would be an executive in control of many machines. but that is a kind of fantasy because it takes away the issue of them being autonomous. you need them to be autonomous for things like dogfighting. if you go into deep missions and you're fighting a nation like china or russia, a nation that is technologically sophisticated, they will be able to jam the satellite signals, the radio signals. to me this is a much worse scenario been having people take over the drone and lookit women on topless beaches. >> and if they take over the drones, they can send our own weapons against them. >> stop using them. >> i just want to mention -- a number of scholars at other institutions and this one are involved in a research consortium to look at some of these issues. it is called setmon -- cetmoms. it is for scholars interested in this subject. i directed to the website. yes, ma'am. >> hello. my name is and zoe. i am 13. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. actually, my view of peace -- i have never known war before in my life. my view of peace is completely void of war. so, when you tell -- when people tell us that war is simply a way to manufacture peace, i would ask you why? >> yes? >> i do not think it is a way to manufacture peace. i think it is a way to return to peace. it is fortunate you have never know war. that is a good thing. there are many people and many -- many people in many nations at your age who have known nothing but violence. i would ask what is the definition of peace. we've talked about the definition of war. there are times that you can say in the avoidance of warfare, because it nations do not resort to conflict, that there are citizens of different nations who are subjected to a lack of peace all the time, physically and in their spirits, the oppression that they go through. that lack of warfare, peace for them, do you automatically transcend if you are at war or at peace? those are things to think about. in my own thought about it, i think about the women and children, and there is a u.n. security council resolution passed 10 years ago called 1325. i would invite you to go and read it. it talks about how the brunt of warfare -- and i would say the brunt of the lack of peace globally -- impacts women and children in a way that it does not impact men. in many cases, that is because women could not even stand in a microphone situation like you are doing right now to be able to address the kind of question. moving forward, much of the research that has been done in the last 10 or 15 years, there is a really fine article written about five years ago by a bunch of researchers at harvard talking about the course of hundreds of years, the impact on women and children of warfare. and if we increase the education of women, and we provide opportunity for them, that by nature, we therefore secure more peaceful circumstances and warfare is something that is not resorted to as often. there are many instances, where there are crimes of humanity perpetrated against women particularly in the form of rape. there are situations like that that sum would define as short of warfare, but certainly could not be in any way construed as a way for them to have a peaceful and abundant life. so, i am happy that you have had the absence of warfare in your life and that you have had peace. i have a daughter who is 20 who i hope never knows those kinds of circumstances that other women are subject to in other nations. i would tell you that i think one of the things that i think is very important is, as we look to secure peace, that we do it on a basis that is not only across the lines of countries so that we are not at war, but the kind of existence that people have is one of opportunity and liberty and education and peace that they have an ability to feel secure, no matter where they are. >> another comment, asa? >> i wish i could speak like yourself, saying i have never experienced anything but peace. i have never experienced anything but war and troops between war. i think you have the picture somewhat wrong. the picture is not there is peace and someone comes along with the idea of having more to have peace. you have something that is unacceptable, which could be war, which could be genocide, and other circumstances. then you went to war in order to stop the activity, which is horrendous. but when you wage war, and you have to constantly think about what is going to happen after the war has ended, and you have to think about peace. so, waging a war is not just getting rid of your enemies. waging a war is to gain at victory over your enemy, but in a way that enables all the involved parties to enjoy peace among themselves when the war ends. >> i know george you have written extensively about a just peace. do you want to comment? >> i guess the addendum would be even if we could envision that dream in the folk song of all the people from all the nations coming together and signing a document in which they renounce war -- we essentially have that in the united nations convention for 1948. that was what it was intended to do. what do we do with a convention like that that grants the member parties, the signatories to the document, the unlimited right to do unlimited wrong within their own borders? what about the holocaust? what about the people of rwanda? so, what we need and do not have yet is a way of protecting peace-loving individuals who were going about their own business and minding the rahm business, whether as a collective entity or as individuals within their nation from being harassed and abused and threatened with violence or death. i think it is right not to call that concern a " war." id is instead law enforcement. we do not have any reasonable mechanisms other than the ad hoc way we do now for protecting the rights of vulnerable people. in rwanda, dark fur -- darfur, wherever they may be. we do not have no method of doing that. so we rely on what our customs of war insofar as they can be made to fit this to accomplish this. this is why afghanistan ling persson. it is not because anyone wishes to make war on the afghan people. it is because what kind of the state can be established so these people will not be living in a threat and terror of continued activity that threatens their security. we do not have a good answer to that. the way we are doing it now is a particularly good. but it is all we have. so we look to people like yourselves to come up with better instruments than the ones we currently have, instruments that would guard the rights and security of vulnerable people. >> the fact that you are here listening to this conversation and you care gives us all a bit of hope. we appreciate your presence. thank you. [applause] >> i will try to be brief. thank you out for your work. i will recommend the book "the code of war." your book and other works make clear how utterly important is to have a guiding moral and ethical principles at every level, from protecting civilians and the ecology infrastructure, to our troops and all the way up to legist ship -- leadership. i've worked with veterans from all over the world and from many of the wars in living memory 3. there is no compelling justification to a soldier who has been in common for taking a civilian life. there is no compelling justification when a combatants decides, before, during, or after the conflict that the causes or the kaine sport illegitimate. and there is no compelling justification for the combatant when they determined that their war was not truly and exclusively a last resort. the only justification i have ever encountered i amorking with combatants all over the world is when they absolutely, unquestionably determine that they fought and had to kill in order to protect the immediate and absolute threat to their families, their children, their homes. in every other case, except those who have cytopathic -- psychopathic tendencies, breakdown in posttraumatic stress disorder. how do we apply the standard to all represent so well as such a high level that the conscience of our combatants and civilians are absolutely and unconditionally protected? >> excellent question. [applause] who would like to take this first? i think when the and then -- wendy and then asa? >> that is an outstanding point. i've had people who work for me and come back and on through posttraumatic stress. my father went to that from vietnam. no one at that point in time, although the categorize it as ptsd, no one offered assistance. i would tell you that i believe fundamentally if someone is going to -- we have a volunteer force in the united states. yes, the volunteers will come back with the same issues. there are a number of fine books written -- actually, there was one girl, a psychologist in iraq who came back. there was a psychologist their who was minister into our troops on the ground, and yet no one was asking her how she was doing. ok? and these are parallels -- there are friends of mine who are doctors in emergency rooms in places like los angeles to go through that same kind of trauma and stress -- who go through that same kind of trauma and stressed. windward dispatching troops to haiti, one of the first things i did -- because i am a psychology major. i am not an engineer. when the first things i did was e-mail the four-star who was sending our forces and asked, sir, please consider dispatching now people who will be trained to minister to the troops, spiritually, emotionally, medically, because what they are going to see -- the onslaught on their consciences of doing relief efforts, where we are not even in warfare, ok? and the fact that they could not intercede, especially for the children, to save the children, was so traumatic for many of them. this is something we have to grapple with in the united states, and i think, globally. any relief effort, at any wartime scenario, we have people who are traumatized by these things. this happens to police officers and firefighters. certainly the ones who responded after 9/11. this is something we have to do. i believe is not just a psychology peace, but a whole person peace, and much of that has to come from the spiritual aspect of how is that individual deal with it from a spiritual perspective, particularly knowing that they had volunteered to go into that situation, and then not fully understood what it is that they were going to get into? i think one of the problems for many, many years, through movies, through books, it is that there is almost a glamour to war or to these kinds of things and people are attracted to do careers for the wrong reasons when they may not be well prepared to handle the aftermath of what their choices are. >> i would like to let a few more of our panelists respond. i am very apologetic to those of you who've been waiting patiently in line. we will run out of time. however, i will impose on our gracious panelists to hang around a little bit after the panel, and perhaps those of you who have not gotten a chance, i do apologize. you could speak to them and ask your questions. now since we're so close to running at a time, i would like any of them to make comments in response to our keynote speakers final questionnaire. what we just go down the line or skip around. henri? >> thank you, shannon. war is tragedy. we should take tragedy in a very precise meaning, which is something you sometimes cannot avoid, i cannot prevent from happening without allowing something else happening, which is maybe even worse. i remember a story of two people -- not fighting, but trying to grasp the same would come offloading would reject -- same floating wood. maybe they are siblings, friends, enemies? we come to moments in time were one life could be exchanged for one of their life, and which one should we take? when we come to such situations, either in war or elsewhere, it selfishness and' utilitarianism ways of thinking are quite inappropriate. dignity, human dignity in tragedy needs higher ground. it is not possible to reach these grounds without studying the concept of sacrifice and a self sacrifice. kierkegaard made this point quite clear, that ethics is reasonably easy to deal with until we come to the point where sacrifice has to be made. then there is the consequence that the universe crumbles. that is what i do not have the answers to all questions. i would like that, but really i do not. i can bear witness. when i was appointed to the literary academy, i suppose i knew. [laughter] quickly realize that in fact, talking about war made the necessary complete reworking of moral philosophy. this is when we come to war and peace. it is necessary to deepen, deepen, deepen in fact all the questions. i can tell you, the first time i talk to my colleague. i was taking a drink with him. he said, i was in serbia. and at such things happen to me. should i pulled the trigger or should i not? >> oh, my. >> so, i think we should address all the questions which emerged from all the genuine wish to eradicate war, not to be satisfied with shallow answers, you know? because war is rooted in everybody and everyone and there is all lost for power -- a lust for power with which we much of surf and analyze. >> now, i realize if you had your hand up earlier i do not want you to forget your point, but -- >> i have forgotten that. >> the last person who opposed the question. i think the issue is much larger and deeper. it does not have anything to do with the unjust way. i am perfectly justified in what i am doing. what i am doing is killing at terrorist to jeopardize the life of my family on one hand, and i might damage three of his neighbors. i am perfectly justified. still, i come home and i have mixed feelings. i am delighted to have been able to protect my family. i am delighted truly delighted. on the other hand, i am very sorry extremely sorry to taken the life of three people who are innocent in the sense of not jeopardize the life of anybody. so i have those mixed feelings. so psychology enters the picture not only when we commit atrocities. when we carry out the perfect action that is perfectly justified, we still have those mixed feelings. now assume there is no collateral damage. assume i am a helicopter pilot. i killed the terrorists to save the life of the veterans. i return home. i hate that i have to kill. i am perfectly justified when i do it. but the person i killed was not innocent at all. he was a terrorist. he was an arch terrorists. so, moral psychology should be applied to people who find themselves in this tragedy. what ever you do, there are two aspects. there is one about which you are happy and one about which you arsad. and so, it is not just posttraumatic stress cases which is much too late. in training, briefings, at every stage when you carry out your command, people who carry out such activities. you have to cultivate those two emotions. be very proud. be courageous. protector force. and all your compatriots. but never forget that human and civility -- if he is a terrorist, he is still a person. i have to kill them. i will do it again tomorrow. i have to do it. i am doing it. i find those mixed feelings, and that should be a regular reaction for combatants. when i speak to pilots and people in other branches of the israeli defense force, it is a regular, ordinary, mixed feelings that people have. >> david? >> you talk very eloquently about the moral trauma of the hearts. if people are better prepared, you can minimize, but you can never eliminate. if you could, then we're in the robotic world of automatons, which i do not think anybody really wants to go to completely. we do not want that. there should be a cost. a human cost. when we put people into this situation, we send men and women to war, we have to look after them afterwards as well. is what you are doing -- and this is part of your proportionate calculation -- the cost to your people, to your society, to the marriages, to the children -- is what you're going to war, is a proportional tax is the end justified? does the end justify what you have got to do? the calculation is very important. the falklands conflict in the early 1980's. more falklands veterans have died at their own hands since the conflict then died in the conflict. the care after the conflict is just as profound as the care before. i live in a town -- which there is no reason anybody would have heard of it. it was the first town that repatriated casualty's from afghanistan. they came out to pay their respects every time. it is always national news. regrettably, it is national news about once or twice a week at the moment. it always makes headlines, as it should. my fear is that 10 years from now, after the suppose a drawdown, those veterans will become forgotten once more and we may see a repeat of what happened after the falklands. i really hope we do not do that again. >> thank you. >> like wendi, i was a psych major as well. i have worked in psychiatric hospitals. i've seen posttraumatic stress. you have to be very careful as a therapist. sometimes, the best -- therapists caused the posttraumatic stress because they get in there and ask the questions. strangely, we've made a lot of progress. at one point, it might have been called shell shock. at other times, it might have be called cowardice and you would have been shot for it. on the other hand, it gives me the idea that soldiers suffering posttraumatic stress gives me great hope for humanity in fact, because you probably know there are a lot of historians going right back to brigadier-general marshall who was considered to be suspect we talked about soldiers from world war ii. the majority of them shot over the heads of the enemy. at the battle of gettysburg, they found that muskets were multiply loaded so people were not even shooting. soldiers never retreated, and it is much easier to kill people in the back -- so that is one of the very strange things of war. i think that this whole thing of "killology." you do not get this shooting over the heads. people are immerse trained in telling. so, they will kill. the idea -- it sounds protest of me to say this. the idea is so many are -- the i dia is so many are suffering from post-traumatic stress is giving me a great deal of hope for the human beings. >> to you have anything else to add? >> i think those are great point. there is a great deal of compassion. we do train people in the art of warfare. fundamentally the military is about warfare. i am charged to fight and win the nation's wars. but i would tell you that our military strategy is that it is just important to preserve the peace, as it is to go to war. we do all of those things. when you subject someone to those combat situations and they have to make a decision, based on the things that are expected of them, people die as a result. that is what we have to do. we come back and develop those kinds of programs. many years ago, we did not deal with that. it is very frequent now that you will actually hear senior commanders talking about experiencing that. there is a level of caring and compassion. i'll also tell you that our political leadership is very taken aback by every single person that is a casualty or dies. if the truth were known, i think there were some of them who have not been in combat who were feeling a great deal and probably would even need, you know, some types of counseling themselves, depending on the situation they are actually in. i did a download of every casualty that is going on, even though i am not in command of those individuals. i care about where they are and what they are going through. and what the repercussions are for the society. in many cases, we spoke to the young lady earlier, the 13-year- old -- thank you for asking your question. in the aftermath of war, people who are not being dealt with adequately in many other nations, in the wars in their own regions may be so filled with issues an anchor that they -- and anger that they carry out catastrophic events against their own populations. we need to not only look into this for the united states, but certainly globally. what do we do so we equip our people to go back into society? >> i'm going to give you the last comment, dr. lucas. >> i wonder if many of you sitting up there have found the last few hours disturbing, confusing, and perhaps an unsatisfying? you should. the present state of conflict is disturbing, confusing, and quite unsatisfying. my concern, personally is our men and women can be put in uniform and placed in harm's way, maintain a sense of their role, purpose, and vision in the midst of this disturbing and unsatisfying situation in which we have placed them. they are tough, good people and they have had a traditional way of summing up their role in all of this. they would say we are the pointy end of the spear. our job is to kill people and break things and you order us to do so until someone orders us to stop. my rejoinder is, well, that may have been so. but now, unfortunately, there are plenty of people already out there in the darker regions of the new global order killing people, breaking things, and generally doing all they can to make human life as miserable as possible. your job is to interpose yourself between your victims -- between them and their victims. >> thank you to all of our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> "washington journal" continues. host: reducing the defense department budget and some of the concerns that members of congress have about advocating such a reduction. tell me, why is it that some of these folks feel that there are other areas whe we can reduce spending and we don't necessarily have to touch on the fense department budget? guest: there is an argument out there that says one of the primary things that the gornment must do is provide for comment defense above all other things. not cutting firemen and policemen at the city or state level. the send argument to make is that there is nobody else out there for protecting u.s. interests. unlike the past,here the british had a great empire or a great navy. there is nobody else out there. if the u.s. wants to protect its own interests, it must do that. there are some really bad people out there with the potential to do some really bad things. there is the concern about the growth of chinese military power. there are questions aboutl- qaeda and its operations worldwide. when you go down the list of these problems, for many people, the argument is that defense as a percentage of the budget is a very cheap insurance policy to protect the nation. host: in march, he wrote an article under t title -- do you rlly think that we are in a position that we are going to have to reduce our defense spending and our defense obligations so our defense is cut back as drastically as the british defense obligations were cut back? guest: that refers to a period in 1962. people who worry about the weakening of the dollar or the chinese calling in our debt, that is the kind of thing you worry about the british left half of the world. and then the united states was there to take up the slack. and there is nobody to take up our slack. before we make drastic arsenic reductions in defense spending, let's figure out what our national and security interests are. then we can decide what to pay out for our commitments. what are the consequences? if we leave a place, that mns it might go nuclear because the lack of our support. host: this op-ed was written in the washington examiner. your thoughts? guest: the real issue here is why can't we of 44% of gdp? there is nothing about -- the al issue here is why can't we afford 4% of gdp? there are things we can do to cut defense or reduce expenditures in the name of efficiency. what we should not do is simply say we are going to take a meat ax to this and it does not matter what the consequences are going to be. host: he is the vice president of the lexington institute about reducing the defense department budget. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are -- if you have called us in th last 30 days, send us an electronic message this morning. our email is -- or you can send us a twitter message. daniel, has there been a change in attitude in defense spending now that we are nine years removed from september 11? right after the attacks, it was like spend on defense spending at all costs, no questions asked. are we beginning to ratchet that back now? guest: we are certainly ratcheting back the idea of throwing money at the problem. this is in respect to even important prrams, like the effort to defeat the implementation of explosive devices. the secretary of defense robert gates has slashed programs that are not working. it does not matter if they are going to be 20 years late and triple the budget. that is true. the cost of defense, personnel costs, maintenance costs, putting troops in afghanistan, they are continuing to rise. no one has found a way to keep those costs from going up. host: michael is on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask why there is not a solid accounting system for the defense department so we can see where the waste and fraud is taking place. guest: this is one of the problems, that defense has not had a good accounting. that was supposed to happen this year. it was the latest. it turns out, public defense has had a dismal accounting system. one reason for that is money is often put aside for programs that is not going to be spent for five or 10 years. we do that for a naval programs. sometimes the money is doled out over a period of 10 or 12 years. having been id, it is certainly about time. we had an opening -- if we had an open accounting system, we would know where the money was going. caller: of it was just wanted -- i just wanted to say that i think a lot of our problems is picking the battles, the wars that we fight. the iraq war was a war that we did not have to fight. i think -- to me, israel is up against our national security. they are only thinking about israel. if we continue to allow them to get away with the things that are getting away with, that is causing terrorism in this country. i think we have to be smarter about the worst that we fight and the allies that we choose and be neutral in some of these states because israel wants to get this country into another war. host: talk to us about the alliances in the far east, asia, and central asia. what is that our alliances are costing us in terms of expenditures? guest: if you say our military is simply to support those people in the far east, then it is a net cost. the fact is, we have in an interest there. u.s. interests are at stake. in a lot of these cases, we have net gains. if we have an aircraft carrier in the far east war in europe, the host country is paying a lot of the costs. we are moving our forces inta bomb. japan is spending billions of dollars, literally heading us a check, to support that kind of facility. if we brought all of this control and put them in bases in the united state we bear the full costs. they also prode actual direct subsidies for u.s. forces. host: you were talking about moving our forces into guam and how the japanese are paying us. how much or would it cost the japanese to put their own military in the region and how much money it would we save by not having a military presence, on the island? guest: it depends which forces that go out to the area. the savings and would be modest or nonexistent. if the japanese build up their military -- we have to fight somewhere else and protect indonesia. we have a relationship with india there would be no net savings to the united states at all. host: our next call comes from north carolina, nancy is on our line for democrats. callnancy? all right, let's move on to build in cape cod. you are on the "washington journal." caller: how are you doing today? by spend over three decades in the military, primarily in special operation. i am experienced in the military and their work now in the private sector. i can tell you for a fact that if we don't have stable funding for the military -- we need to have stable funding for the service given all the missions that we have taken upon ourselves on a global scale, if you will. i want to point out that there is a lot greater need in the cyber warfare, if you will, the whole internet and computer systems and the threat that we face are around the globe through our computer and intelligence systems. i am very pleased that the government has increased funding and support for our special operions divisions. we were based out of florida but we operate all over the country. most people do not realize what we do, but we are the first rise in the years for the remainder of our service units. we need to continue to support our veterans, all of our brothers and sisters who are disabled. the government sent us into coat and they really need to provide the medical and psychological benefits that we have earned. host: why do you mean by stable funding? how can you use that term in this situation with the military that is very often unstable? they do not know when your to the next how many people they have to deploy to a certain area caller: if i had the control, i would put ade enough monies in special accounts to provide stable funding, and i would really, really focused on a contract that we had with the defense contractors to make sure we get the best bang for our buck. est: for the military and -- the size and character that we have, we need about 4% of gdp on average. part of the reason why you need that amount, military technology, even when the programs are well defined, grows at a higher rate than civil technology. therefore, for this kind of military, which we have had for over 45 years, which has been very useful, you need about that percentage. as the caller just suggested, that is about what we are going to spend. a should not go down much in a crisis. a should be as efficient as possible. host: the last caller also mentioned contractors. does the hiring of contractors stabilize the costs of our military overall? does t cost of contractors fluctuate also with missions and deployments? guest: it fluctuates greatly. we are using contractors to supply our forces in iraq and w in afghanistan. they are doing logistics' jobs that might otherwise have to be done by military personnel. in a sense, which do not have to have those people in e uniform with a long-term commitment because when a cris happens we can call on those contractors to take up the slack. host: our next call comes from chicago, ill., on our line for independents. caller: talking about cutting banks, the product as military. some of these people are being paid more than our enlisted people. these people have notsworn an oath to this country. you are cutting back there and you are scaling back the funding of people coming back who are injured. i think that is not reducing but balancing it. we do need transparent accounting with this because it is our money. we need to have accountability for this. host: i think one of the important -- guest: it should not be done at the expense of one thing or another account at the expense of veterans. those troops need the support they are getting from those contractors and need to have the upper ready when they need it. they need to have the logistics work. host: next up, on our line for the democrats. let's move on to hayward, caf., on our line for republicans. caller: first of all, i think they need to do a better job of sending the questions to him. it first of all, all of those contractors are connected with the congress and is a seat those contracts from these private companies. it is like the same scheme that wall street did to us. then you get on the tv and asked us to be patriotic. then you want to go to other countries and insist on them to have a democracy. it leaves the other countries alone. let them have the culture that they want to have. then you have all of these media channels complaining about the government, taking up back -- taking back our government. you complained about going through the airport. you are creating a whole disaster around the world. host: we will leave it there. do you have a comment? guest: there is a decision we have to make about what america's role is going to be printed in the united states really is a linchpin in the stability. everybody in the world, all of those countries that we worry about are going to start building up their own the military's. and they are going to be fearing each other. it is going to be a world of less security, not more. host: we are talking to the vice-presidentf the lexington institute about the defense department budget. we want to touch on concerns about members of congress, including those who have been elected from the help of the tea party, about reducing the budget of the department of defense. from where you sit, to the incoming members in who were selected, do they have the juice to actually cut back on defense spending over and above what may have been laid out by some of the more veteran members of the house and senate? guest: i think they are going to have a knee-jerk reaction. it is difficult enough to do in the middle of 1.5 wars. it would be a particularly bad way of dealing with this defense problem. one has to address the question of what kind of military we wanted. if you are not going to invest in cutting edge systems, do you really want to buy airplanes for at the u.s. military that are not better than the other side? do you want to put our pilots in harm's way without better ry on c-span three. "washington journal" continues. host: amy harder is the energy and environment reporter here to talk to us about the coal industry. welcome to the "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: first tell us what is clean coal? guest: first of all. a lot of people think it's an oxymoron. it's kind of a lamen's term ccs. that's technology that will enable, although not commercially viable yet, where coal burning plants to run more cleanly. you capture it and store under ground. there's only had half a dozen demonstration projects in the world. these rules announced are laying the foundation for what the administration hoping will be a commercially-viable technology. the industry isn't expecting that any time soon. host: so instead of it coming out of the top, they will store it? guest: the technology is very new. there are some ccs type projects for oil that are also being developed right now, but it's mainly going to be used hopefully for coal, given it's the dirtyist energy and the one we're the most reliant on. host: how necessary is coal to the production of energy in the united states? guest: it's absolutely critical and the administration realizes that, even though environmentalists are opposed to coal. they don't support clean technology because they say it doesn't exist. the concept of clean coal, but the administration understands that coal is number one, a domestic fuel and when we're trying to get off foreign oil, we have to do that. it's cheaper than nuclear power. creates jobs for economies in the midwest and all crucial reasons why we need to continue using coal. host: there's a climate summit coming up in cancun, mexico. with climate chance to push greenhouse gas emissions all but dead in the united states. they will meet on monday to find a less vicious attack to global warming in the city of can cun. they will focus on the caret of tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies. tell us about this 2-week conference and how much of attention is going to be focused on the u.s., and how much greenhouse gas we're emitting into the at mos -- atmoshere. guest: the u.s. is going into these talks in a weakened position compareed to last year's talks. the united states will be the central focus like it is in almost all talks. we do have a disproportionate share of the carbon emissions. host: will the results of what happens at this meeting in cancun, will that put any sort of emphasize on getting cap-and-trade legislation back on the front burner? guest: no, frankly, i don't think it's going to have a sizeable impact on what the congress does in energy legislation. cap and trade is essentially dead for two years. republicans -- there's a good amount of republicans that don't think the climate is changing. so i think these talks will -- they will be important insofar there has been a lot of people that say these global negotiations are not useful or productive. they may encourage people to think about different ways to do it. in terms of any type of impetus. i don't think it will have any. host: we're talking about the coal where amy harder. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the screen and you can send messages by e-mail and twitter. our first call is from new land. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. can you explain to me because my brain is small. can you explain why our country is giving millions of dollars to other countries to drill for oil? and during the 2008 elections, boom pickins was spending his money on natural gas when now we hear that china is driving extremely hard to turn their automobile industry into natural gas because that's the way of the future. why are we not doing that since 2008, this is 2010, fixing to be 2011 and we're not talking about natural gas. thank you and have a great day. host: thank you, caller, your brain is bigger than you think. guest: the first on dripping. off-shore drilling has really gotten on the box. president obama in march introduced an expanded off-shore drilling. as far as giving money to brazil and mexico, there are supporters that want to expand off-shore drilling. i do see that happening in the 112th congress especially with the republican-controlled house. the senate hopes to vote to a t bone pickins bill. it's interesting that china is moving forward. so, the reason why t-bone pickins bill hasn't passed congress yet is because of the way to pay for that bill, which cost $5 million. the idea of using natural gas does have bipartisan support. host: you say the cost is $5 billion. what does that pay for? host: 4.5 goes to natural gas and the rest to electric technology. promoting infrastructure and tax incentives. primarily in the semitrucks. it's expensive. in order to do that, the trucks could cost up to $80,000. so it's a steep price for them to pay. at the same time, it's cheaper and much cleaner then. host: our next call comes from houston texas jan on our line for democrats. caller: yes. good morning. i just had a question. i worked in the coal industry for over 20 years in indiana beginning in the early 1970's. there was a lot of emphasis put on clean coal and the coal companies strategy as far as what we were going to do to reduce emissions. in the early 1980's, for a good decade, you couldn't look at the newspaper, the news or anything without hearing this term acid rain. that was a big issue. now it's like you never hear this term anymore. what happened with that, you know, i don't think the coal emissions were reduced so much that that's not even an issue anymore. why don't we ever hear about acid rain? host: acid rain is quite relevant to the discussion about reducing our carbon emissions. and that reduced the emissions of the utility sector by upwards of 70 to 80%. there are new regulations coming down the pipe that will reduce acid rain. this was that program in the 1990's that reduced acid rain. at the same time, proponents of a cap-and-trade system cite the system created in the 1990's, because it was successful. it can be used for carbon emissions as well. host: carl, you're on the "washington journal." caller: you are talking about coal. we're going to burn it for a long time to provide electricity. there's no such thing as clean control when you look at the way they extract it. you talk to the kentuckians or west virginia, you can see how they have dumped all the debris and waste. there will never be such a thing as clean coal. thank you for listening to me. guest: yeah, mountain top mining is a very controversial way to might be for coal. that's separate from ccs. insofar, it's a way to actually mine the coal. whereas, ccs deals more with the power plant and how to emit less carbon into the atmosphere. host: in this meeting in cancun. it's talked about in in issue of the journal. the balance of power, how the shifting dynamic between the united states and china could doom the climate talks. is the concern that the lessor countries are going to be sort of frozen out of conversation and dominated by what the u.s. and what china want in terms of energy production, energy consumpion? host: we have a lot of partnerships with china, but we're all very dependent on them. it will be interesting on what china and the united states will do. they are moving forward with clean energy. they have committed to reduce their emissions more concretely than we have given. we don't have any type of bill that reduces it. but, at the same time, a lot of people point out china is building coal-fired power plants at a record level. there will be, just like last year, a stand off between president obama and china on this in the 11th hour of the copenhagen talk. we don't have any bill so china will have the upper hand. host: as far as gaining favor, alliances with some of the smaller countries, some of the lesser consumer countries, who's really going to have the upper hand? the united states or china? does the money go also? guest: well china consumes the largest or the most emissions in the world, and we are second. we just swapped positions there. china is -- has been historically technically categorized as a developing country. that's something that enrage us us here. so, the biggest thing with developing countries they want climate finance. last year, secretary of state, hillary clinton, pledged the united states would contribute to. a portion of hundred billion dollars. i don't think that's going to fly with the republican house that wants to ban earmarks and give money to developing countries for climate change. host: in addition to covering energy and environment in the national journal. amy harder monitors a blog. guest: it's national journal and the energy environment expert. host: justin on our line for democrats. are you there? [bleep] host: kentucky on our line for republicans. caller: yes, i have one question and one comment. my one question on the unanticipated affects of the items you capture from the clean coal technology, has any thought been given to how you're going to dispose of that or store is that? i make that comment in relationship to the unanticipated intent had hydrology. also, i always thought of eastern kentucky, the appalachian area and southwest virginia as being more the east coast rather than the midwest. they seem to have a bigger affect on there. do you have any thoughts on the unanticipated effects of the clean coal technology? guest: yeah, that's a great question. i think a lot of what you call the unanticipated consequences are unknown at the moment given there are so few demonstration projects in the world and even less in the united states. some of the issues as you rightly point out is how to store this. it would go underground. that's a very tech -- technical problem. they are trying to lay the foundation and the task force president obama developed. host: next up, eric. caller: yeah, i had a question about what would it take for us to get to where china is at in life with them getting farther along in the coal industry and building the companies, and what it will take for us to get to where we need to be at with where they're at today. guest: well, there's a lot of step that is china is able to take given it's not a democracy with a senate and house that often becomes gridlock. that's one of biggest differences between united states the china. so, the way -- there was a great article in the atlantic magazine last issue, i think it was. that examined the relationship between china and the united states as it pertains to coal, specifically clean coal. china has become this breeding ground for clean coal and coal-fired plants. in order for the united states to join, we need to engage with china and partnership with various advantages that the two countries can offer. host: next up. cleveland, ohio, lance. caller: hi. how are you doing? i have a question about the tipping point. whether or not the young lady, ms. harder believes the tipping point we have so many years to reduce our output before there's a point of no return and whether you do or don't, are there any studies of what clean coal technology, how much it will reduce our or shorten the length of us getting to this tipping point of, you know, not being able to correct our mistakes as far as the environment? guest: thanks for your questions. as far as the tipping point, there's different schools of thought. come feel we have gone past the tipping point. specifically a price to carbon i missions. other studies have concluded it's only going to get worse without action to reduce carbon emissions. on the ccs, i know that the new rules from the epa. one of them was to require power plants to report how much greenhouse gases they have reduced. given it's so undeveloped and not used on a commercial scale. really hard to predict how much they will reduce. given coal already emits, almost 40% of the emissions in the united states are from coal-fired plants. host: clifford krous wrote this. there will be fuel. they will come with cost. he writes another wave of natural gas drilling has taken across the united states and it's just beginning in europe and asia and an increase in liquefied natural gas export. do you see it's going to go down and are their regulations or legislation being worked on the hill to sort of keep that in check? guest: you know, natural gas is a very fascinating energy source given how the political landscape has changed. without a price to carbon. natural gas has emerged as the one that's worn out. given you mention the shale discoveries and louisiana and the northeast. that's huge for the industry. given the prices are so cheap, insiders predict the utility sector will shift from coal to natural gas. the price volatility is a really big issue and has a lot of industry concerned. that could slow down the change from coal to natural gas. they like to point out. given the fact that prices will remain low for the forseeable future. host: just below that, in the heartlands still investing in coal, one of the callers earlier talked about coal that's being mined in kentucky and west virginia, how much of a contest will we see in the next few years regarding coal-fired and natural gas. what do you expect to be the politics in coal usage and natural gas usage? host: i think that's going to be, given not a price to carbon emissions, going to be a dominant part the discussion over the next couple years. coal-fired plants because of the epa restrictions will be faced with daunting regulations that could knockout the coal production. that will happen inevitably, there's the price volatility and hydrauli hydraulics. there's a natural gas to extract that. host: tell us about that because it's a fascinating process. guest: yeah, i know it has been on the internet. it's a very wonky topic. you shoot chemicals into the ground to extract the gas. it uses a lot of water. there's been reports it could contaminate the drinking water around there. that could be the one thing, that and the price volatility are pretty much the only two issues going against natural gas. an interesting dynamic. hydrology pricing is really expensive. to invest in that, the natural gas prices really need to be higher to offset those prices. if you cost is higher, you may go back to coal. natural gas. while it's poised to gain in the next decade. host: jack writes what about reports of people's water taps running with gas to ignite there's faucets? guest: the epa is doing a study on the affects of water and environmental and safety concerns. that's expected to be concluded toward the end or mental health of next year. until then, there's a lot of back and forth and those who live around that which is the safest way to do that host: our next call. from pennsylvania, rudolph, thanks for waiting. caller: there's no reason why coal focus has to pollute. i used to work in coal and we sent it to mississippi, our coal generation and they passed the clean air act. it's going to be stopped because they're polluting the water and everything. i don't know what person came up with taking co2 and putting it in the ground. they should find a way to make profit to convert it. there's no reason why coal as to pollute at all. the coal stockers don't pollute. they passed the clean air act. host: rudolph, we will leave it there. guest: that raises a good point. those carbon regulations that go affect are requiring all power plants to implement what's known as the best available control technology. which is basically things like scrubbers and other efficient technology in order to make the power plant as clean as possible. notably, in the rules the epa will roll out. the agency has explicitly says. clean coal technology will not be required to be installed given it's not commercially available yet. host: this article also in the "new york times," the problem with republicans say the united states should embark on a building campaign. senator john mccain at the 2008 presidential nominee called for 45 more reactors. but the party dislikes what it needs. its progress in the mid-term elections are doom for now. as you mentioned, does the election of so many republicans to capitol hill mean a slow down or stoppage in the thoughts or progressing on building nuclear power plants here in the united states? guest: republicans are pro-nuclear power. the deficit hawks to the bone. they don't want to spend any money. nuclear power is the most expensive. to build one reactor it's 6 to 7 to $8 billion president obama has allocated in his last year's budget, to go on top of energy budget the energy department already has. only 8 billion of it, i think 7 or 8 billion has been given for that. as that article probably notes is that without a price on cauton emissions, coal and natural gas will continue to rein as the most popular choices. nuclear power is too expensive. and dollars waste. yucca mountain has been yanked as an option. that hangs in the balance what to do with nuclear waste. host: next up. wade county, "washington journal." >> caller: i would like to challenge c-span to have a conversation on mountain top removal mining. it's destroying west virginia and appalachia. it's the dirtiest way for the coal industry to make money. a lot of this coal can be mined under ground. when they go from a thousand feet in these mountains and dumping this product, this violates the clean water production act. we cannot do mountain top removal legally in the united states. the problem is the legacy that's left for this, this rubble that's being removed from these mountains and shoved into the streams contains heavy metals and based on our vital statistics and cancer rates. the heavy metals causes crazy stuff. learning disabilities kidney and liver cancer. if we don't have to do this. there's a lot of other ways to lessen the impact. they talked about the clean air act. when they passed the clean air act and decided to do the scrubbers and change the quality of the coal being shipped to the power plants, they left these impairments and these massive sludge ponds of the waste -- host: sorry joe, i inad vertently hit the button. guest: it's taken a back seat, if you take the environmental perspective on that and hydraulicos that. i know epa has taken steps shut that down. there's the sentiment to shift away from that. without a price on carbon. mountain top mining will be a factor. the epa is taking the steps to take care of that. host: we have this e-mail is that says, since the usa has the largest deposits of coal, is there research or technology to pulverize coal? guest: i haven't heard anything like that. just the sheer fact we have the largest coal reserves in the world, makes it a vital piece. that gets back to the ccs policy. i know we had callers from west virginia. the senator is a huge proponent of the coal industry. he introduced legislation, from the retiring senator from ohio that incentivizes that. the technology for coal, i think he, that bill would create $20 billion or so for -- to incentivize that. that's really what will be the saving grace for the coal industry. host: homewood, illinois, you're on the "washington journal" caller: yes, i have read books on the co2 effects. one of them is by peter huberg. in this book, he indicates the americans are actually through [inaudible] absorbed the co2. it's the rest of the world that actually is creating a problem if there is one. and i -- from his book, i understand as well humans account for only 6% of the co2 that's emitted. the oceans and tilled land emit many, many times the amount of co2 that's created by human activity. host: amy harder. guest: yeah, there's a lot of different reports on how humans contribute to carbon. humans are at least part, and it varies, are due in the rise to greenhouse gas emissions. even regardless of whether huma humans interpret climate change, they are facing these regulations regardless of the studies that say it's happening or not happening. to the industry, they have, they have taken a step back. this has distanced themselves from climate change. but they have to work to reduce the emissions no matter what. host: next up. you are on the "washington journal," steve. caller: yes. they are currently no credible scientists that suggest that co2 does anything negative to the environment. it's quite the contrary. it make plants grow faster. you see that evidence in the peer-reviewed process. you can go and read an 870 page document negating all the evidence for co2. it's nothing but superstition motivating this. it's quite the contrary. can you google hot tub sized nuclear power plants, which will produce enough power for 25,000 houses and cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $28 a month rather than all the prices to come up with energy for people. host: and we'll leave it there. guest: yeah, there are a lot of, you know, there are alternatives that say co2 points to that. i am not a scientist. but can continue to reference the peer-reviewed studies. the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that is causing increased wildfires and increased sea levels and the what not. as to your point about the nuclear power, nuclear power has a lot of great assets. it's a steady, base low power and emits no carbon at all. as i pointed out earlier, it costs so much money and there's so many risks. the big question mark of the nuclear waste. paired with the fact there's no price to carbon to make nuclear not as expensive to coal. host: bob sends this twitter message. it comes from our own respiration. next environmentalists will stay, stop breathing. dennis, you're on the "washington journal," go ahead. caller: just to bob. if we don't do about this soon, we will all stop breathing. this is the largest, worst things we face in the world today. the answer is very clear. it's renewable energies. i live in philadelphia, they just announced in nobody noticed. the outdoor football stadium that the eagles just built is going all agree. next year, i don't remember the name of the power company is going to have it set up with these beautiful windows all around the outside and solar panels. they will produce enough electricity to sell to the owners of football team for the game days to light up the field. during the week, they will produce enough energy to sell back to the grid. this is the answer to the united states's independence from the rest of world. we cannot drill out way out. we don't have enough. we can't blowup enough mountain tops. we just cannot do it. host: dennis, we will leave it there. guest: renewable energy is something we haven't discussed. it's really left in this standing still without a price on carbon emissions. i keep going back to that. that's the turning point we have made. renewable energy faces extremely high cost and encourage it. at the same time, renewable -- the amount of renewable energy the utilities must produce is facing a similar face as cap-and-trade. there's a bill in the lame duck congress that probably won't pass. it faces even a more conservative house and senate. so renewable energy. only makes up 7% of the entire country's power supply. that includes hydroelectric power. solar is not even one %. when you look at those number, compareed to of commons presides over this 90 minute debate. [inaudible conversations] >> colleagues, please be seated. welcome to those, only the second ever sitting of the u.k. youth parliament here in the chamber of the house of commons. as he will have heard already, because the point is being made, on the 21st of july this year, the house of commons voted to allow the u.k. youth parliament to meet annually for the remainder of this parliament to debate the subject, which you have decided should be debated. that decision, with a ringing endorsement of the outstanding success of the first-ever series of debates, which took place exactly a year ago and it was also, members of the youth president, a symbol of the commitment of the house of commons, better to engage with civil society in general and with young people in prticular, a car ich i imagine by now, many of you will know, is very dear to my own heart. i mention the 21st of july, which has an historic and enduring significance for you at the parliament. three days afterward -- and if i may say so at my request to the chief exutive of the parliament, on the 24th of july, i traveled to belfast because i wanted to be present on the occasion of your annual general meeting. and i was, i confess, overwhelmed on that occasion by the warmth and generosity of the welcome that she extended to me in return for the warmth and generosity of the welcome that you extended to me, i., on behalf of the house today, extend the warmest and most generous welcome possible to each and every one of you sitting here at the chamber and two of the people who have aided and abetted to in coming here today. and i offer you that not merely out of politeness, because there's nothing wrong with that, but out of repect, respect for what you are, respect for what you do and respect for what i know you as a parliament will increasingly become. the legitimate and respect good form for the expression of the views of young people and the engagement and debate on crucial questions, which affect you, your fellows and society as a whole. and i know that many of my parliamentary colleagues here today, from the deputy leader of the house, david healy, to the chair of the business committee, thatcher and go and from all parliaments, are united in respect for what we can learn from your own parliament. in terms not merely of enthusiasm, though they certainly have a president and the range of subjects that they discuss, which is easily observable, but if you're representativeness as an institution. i have always been stuck by the 50% if you care about your female, approximately 20% if you are from black and minority ethnic communities. in approximately 10% of you had some form of disability. so in terms of representing the kaleidoscope of modern society come at te u.k. youth parliament does it very impressively and does it a away from which the elected house of commons at south can learn. on this great occasion, i would like to y something about a very special man, who is sadly no longer with us. and that man is called andrew rau, who served as member of parliament for midtown and then forefather shown and it can't and he sadly passed away two years ago. andrew rowe, served as mp for that constituency, was as farsighted as he was a warmhearted man, whose visual and inspiration that was to see established a u.k. youth parliament as a forum for young people to debate, to articulate, to engage with each other and to contribute to the democratic process. he is turn off minimum of fashion to establish the parliament with a relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters. i know how proud he would b today of your presence and of what you're going to offer. and from my poi of view, it's a joy and i think it is for you, to be able to welcome andrew's family who are in the gallery over there, his children and his grandchildren. you're hugely welcome and you could be so proud of what andrew did. he was truly a great parliamentarian, a thoroughly decent man and what hugely appreciated. [applause] [applause] we are going to get onto the great debates. enjoy yourselves. speak up and speak their minds. speak for yourself, speak for your fellows come to speak for your areas and recognize that it's a great privilege and it's a privilege which should be truly rewarding for you. we're thrilled to have you. we are going to get on to the main business of the day because there is much to do as winston churchill did in very little time in which there is to do it. [laughter] order, order appeared to youth parliament will consider the first motion of the day, relating to sex education as printed on the order paper. to move the motion -- and i ask you to give him a very warm welcome. i call mr. joe vincent. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. may 1st thank you in a process for getting us here today. we'll eay value how you felt this so far. mr. speaker, the highest teenage rate, an increasing number of transmitted infections among young people knows compulsory sex education in the united kingdo this is a dire situation we find ourselves in today. in current legislation, no school in england or wales is compelled to teach their students about sex and relationships in italy the governors of the school that decide what is taught. this is a disgrace. this approach has not only left many people naïve enough nowhere in this created an adversary pocode lottery. if you don't live in the right area, yowon't be taught the copyright status. because the school doesn't have to teach any of it. in fact, the only compulsory elements of sex education are contained in the science curriculum. and let us be clear, sex education covers a wide range of issues affecting young people and these include: safe practices, transmitted infections and legal issues surrounding consent and abuse. these, mr. speaker are clearly beyond the realms of science. it is this lack of education that is haunting society. the most recent figures showed that almost 43,000 young people, it is up to 19 had an abortion in 2008. and in different terms, that's 117 abortions every day for those aged up to 19. other countries have shown that by teaching your people about sex and relationships from an early age, teenage pregnant he, sexually diseases: mr people or complement about themselves. we can't say that it singl or in person pulled from the tribes of previous generations. it makes sense if you teach a young person the basics of what is a good, healthy relationship is before there'll want to sex him about the confidence to make healthy decisions. sex education in this country is too little too late. we need to wake up to the facts. when he took what were doing to young people and say this is enough. why are we waiting until there is a problem to teach young people aut se education? were treating it like were covering up behind a 30-ton. sex educationists circulate to stop the damage before it's too late. on a similar note, if we are serious about our commitment to ensuring a person is seven left in the dark, but we must remove a parents right to take their child out of sex and relationships education. it wld be ridiculous of me to stand here and i mention religion. and i recognize the difficulty they propose to certain religions, which is why support the previous government's proposal to allow the source to their belief in education, too. i cannot stress enough how important it is that no young person falls through and not. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for getting us off to a confident, clear starter. there lots of people to hear from today, but i do want you to appreciate the blood of my parliamentary colleagues are you today. as evidence of their strong support for you as an organization, for each of you as an individual. timor 10. he's very shy, but yr handout. lynn brown,, not. kerry mccarthy was the labour member of the minister and no doubt the colleagues who is now leaning forward expectantly. we wouldn't want not to notice you and it would indd be impossible for any length of time. [laughter] is great to have you. i call ms. maria finnerty to oppose the motion. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are a generation like no other. and the world in which information can be trained mended at the clickf a button, it is unsurprising that young people develop ideas influenced the media. images dominate media activity and often presented socal and so recklessly that it is fido that our young people are provided with immediate responsible counterpart to sex and relationship education. 76% of teens surveyed across the country, including those in my own constituent he thought that they needed more sex education. young people are clearly provided with inconsistent and in opera. sre. however, teams that take sex education to young could exacerbate the effects of the media. i'm sure you'll agree that an understding of relationship cannot simply be taught on the chart board, but requires experience of life, which primary children do not possess. any primary school teacher will uphold, promote and encourage the role of parents as an educator, particularly between the impessionable ages of five and 10. it is simply not necessary for the state to interfere with the powers and race to enter this crucial that that delicate moral issue with their own young children. essentially, we are experiencing a traffic laws of the child. and what, high street reveals a distressing turn to the adult design. children with playboy symbols. our children are being sexualized too young and we must aim to protect this short-lived innocence. sre is simply an appropriate within primary curriculum. the issue quite clearly does not lie within the thought, but how thoroughly and how consistently. the se education recently brought up the main concern of youths is in my normal? we must not do love young men and particularly young women to their self image is tormented by a media which often fails to acknowledge differences in shape, size and appearance. we must dispel the illusion that they must conform to the media image of perfection and teach them and set the value of their own unique bodies. i believe that teaching children sex education at primary school will be too much to young. let us defend the innocence of childhood. it is a sedentary school age that sre becomes crucial for the health and well-being of millions of young people. thank you. [applause] >> maria, thank you for an excellent contribution. now, who wants to take part in this debate? any people to indicate, and you've been told how to do so. >> we are separated by or social backgrounds more than anything else. therefore would be blind to believe that when unilateral policy would be the answer. what is needed is a policy-based and a solid aim to reduce, teenage pregnancy rate venture promote all aspects of relationships. sex education is not a. one size does not fit all to solve this problem. it's a waste of time, money and resources that an effective policies launched the entire country. education is bad for ignorance. ignorance will exist not only to pass an exam, but how to take care of their own well-being. with the right education and the right to help comes the rights of the health education. it is not a question of morality, but a question of equality. why should some children in this country have education when others do not? they also have some form of personal health education and sex education as a new part of action tat came through in a local area priorities for what they wanted to do. at only 1.6% of people who voted out the dirt education was an issue. however, 60% of young people feel that their education is out of touch. e government has to take responsibility twos education. for inequality, which affec the basic well-being of the human being is unacceptable in state society. financially, sexual education is highly viable. if you teach teenagers about prevention measures, then it would reduce the cost and accept thousands each year, thus helping the 20 billion pounds efficiency and productivity savings the government had introduced this year. but in education needs to be on people. the right topics are introduced, the numbers continue to rise, money wasted. this is why a curriculum finalized the local level and meet the needs of each young person. this way, every young person is to be valued and every young person in this country can be equal. [applause] >> young getleman with the red tie at the back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. other members weekdays a fast growing and serious issue. >> from which part of the country? >> i was mips -- [inaudible] as my reasonable friend that in the past three years we have a sre relationship and people in my constituency sex education when it exists is very limited, often focuses oncontraception, inception and not getting pregnant, but it doesn't tackle the issues of eelings, emotions, competence or communication. and we need to put this in an propriate cultural context. and also i would like to remind the honorable members here that the children and families those in parliament in some concessions along the way due to our position. not me personally and my constituency believes that this is an absolute disgrace and a complete betrayal to young people who actively requested that sex education is to be better provided. [applause] >> magnificent. the suit were very reluctant to go first. can we have someone from northern ireland. chairwomen there. >> i'd like to look at this from a large perspective first of all. i believe teenage pregnancy is an appropriate measure of the excessive quality of sex education jurisdiction. it's often about to say with the highest in western europe, but that's in context. first of all, 1971, 50.6 births were teenage mothers. however, in my own region, north of ireland, only 23 were to teenage mothers. but the massive decrease. and i can perhaps attribute type to the education is initiated by or department of health. a 6.6% decrease since 2000, despite the fact they were come pretty assistant during te 90s. the point would be that we are at severe risk of over sexualizing our primary school children. their innocence should be safe, not sacrificed for the sake of a statistic. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. the young lady here. >> bobby simmons. i feel we have misnamed this debate. i feel that elationships, are moremportant and this is why i've completely wholehearted he agree with the decision to take them to rsa. we have our priorities wrong. relationships should concur. relationship is key to good, safe and informed sex. we need to look to relationships first. but then again, i'mnot saying that sex is wrong. it's not wrong to have. it's good and it can lead to better things. [cheers and applause] and with that, it shows they guess we are extreme deep sexuizing our primary school children. but why should we teach them about relationships? why should we teach them about life why should we teach them about how to have good relationships and then it could lead onto sex. it is not wrong for sex, but yet it's too early. therefore, i think we should teach in more context of private school relationships and then move onto sex. so my point here is that we have our priorities wrong. relationships first, leading to and that's how we should educate our children. [applause] >> young men they are. yes indeed, sir. >> yes, i'd like jamaica plain first of all about age in primary school. i can't imagine prais by telling this is what happens when you get an. it shows that relationship first and other things in relationships to sex education that you can bring an earlier and think about and education primary school defensible. it must be mentioned that he pushes a button in today's society and you see images they are learning from friends or roommates. the government has an opportunity to tell people versed about sex enemies to keep up with the media speed and sexual imaging. thank you. [applause] >> members of the parliament, we've been joined by tumor lleagues. valery who is worse outcome a labour member. and allison mcgovern is with us as well. the thank you both for coming. >> my name is landry ever allowed, of london. i think it's important that we keep the innocence of young people. i don't think it's a good idea to corrupt the minds of young people into thinking i'm going to catch and std if i do this and do that because i wouldn't want my brother coming home again told me today learned about and chlamydia. that is not good at all. also we've got in primary schools i'm sure they teach sex education from the age of year five. they teach them about sex, the basics, not about sexual transmitted infections. that's when they start to learn more in detail about what's going on if you do this and you do that. so we should keep it at that instead of making them think i'm five years old, when i get to lebanon to thisand this is going to happen to me. now. [laughter] >> thank you. colin ashworth. >> my name is owen ashworth om halt the north was. young people with the quality of sex ducation is diabolically of the information they have taught today. that is the best case they can get worse for some individuals, which has gotten a disability get no sex education because it's the social norm. [applause] >> the young woman over there. >> johnny davis from bristol. as it has been said before, this is not about teaching girls about std's for using a. it's teaching gross to have a healthy relationship in the future. his teaching about confidence, and in my normal thing, same everyone develops at different stages. everyone is ready for sex at a different age and this is not about the facts and the figures and the birds and the bees. they should be left to when you're older. the young people are having sex from the age of 11 or 12. and if we left it too late, these people can already get pregnant. i have known by people of that kind of age tht i've got pregnant. we need to teach people about the respect and when the right time is a need to teach that not necessarily from site, but from a quite l&h. i would have someone tell me, maybe they should drink some more alcohol, then they'd be ready for their first time, which is completely out of order. no one should have to feel pressureinto anything. the age of consent, std', everything else. not enough is put on feelings, personal appearance and confident to say no until you are ready and in a healthy relationship. [cheers and [applause] >> thank you very much indeed for what you have to say. ve we got a female member om the west midlands who might like to contribe, no? yes, i think we have. [inaudible] i just like to say in private schools i think we should secure the relationship and making sure they have a healthy relationship between the persons. it's n actually that much more familiarnd used to be improved on. the thing is what needs be improved on we also need to government relationship and sex, but also we have new sent this for these children to. u.k. i think maybe we should have this game, which then goes to school, which young people would feel more comfortable talking to persons like that. i think some teachers fe awkward and i cannot sex education in that situation should be -- [inaudible] thank you. [applause] >> whoever got from wales who was waiting to speak? young woman mayor. thank you. >> i have been taught nothing of relationships or sex education at her. i got nothing until i was in biologlessons, i thought how you actually got pregnant and how humans reproduce. i was utterly shocked and that's probably different as i'm sure a lot of people's parents would give them that information. but i simply believ in primary school age they should be taught about safe and loving relationships. by your parents or stepparents order who brought you up and is developed here because that is the way forward on that. and i don't think that in secondary school it should be brought into much more depth, not only do things such as pregnancy and sdis, but also re the relationship side of it, so that it can be attacked as a good team, which is like the dangers that are always shocked to you, that you almost do it because it's dangerous. and i learned far re from the show that maria mentioned that i have ever learned in school, which i think is just wrong. [applause] >> i'm going to call the you woman from buckingham. >> hello, i am at their psyche. ladies and gentlen, britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in erope and there was a social and political reasons for this. but the most paramount thing about rectifying this issue is education. we need to educate youngpeople on sex and relationships. and it is not just making it compulsory, but we need to have a basic standard of sre and schools. see, if we look at the system at the moment, the fluctuations between different schools, different counties is now says. some of my friends have had comprehensive and consistent sre education, whereas i in my entire life can count about three and a half hours. two of those were in primary school when i learned about how the human reproductive system works. one of those within europe when i walked into a biology class and that is slightly more in depth about how the human reproductive system rks. and one of those was 45 minutes in whi i learned how difficult it was to put on a condom. so the thing about it is we need to prevent young people from learning about relationships and sex through google and costa. we are thoroughly distorting the ideas the better relationships. we need to teach young people about contraception, about safe back, but relationships, but how to spot an abusive relationship before it starts. it is a huge thing. and for those who say that sre is by the pairings for the children -- [inaudible who feel thoroughly mortified about having to talk with parents, raise your hands. [inaudible conversations] cameras in my hands, mom, if you're watching as well. [cheers and applause] every single context they form an existence has had. okay, we start when we were teenagers. [applause] >> right, before this debate is found up with that time -- i'm going to create time for two very short contributions. young women here. and then for the east of england. just at 10 yeah speaker. i believe that it's paramount not only to teach children and young people about what is a healthy relationship and how to manage one's, but to help teach them about managing quality and to bring the policy and society. and the only way to do studies teacher and from from a young age that is perfectly accetable to have same sex relationships, for example. i'm not in my constituency, there still is a lot of that occurs and i'm sure the same approxation. and the only way to tackle this is to teach children from a young age that is perfectly acceptable to have the same sex relationship and it's perfectly normal to have a relationship and that's the only way to stop this inner quality that so does occur. [applause] >> thank you for that speech. as you can taught me the real impact. east of england, whoever got from the east of england? young woman here. [inaudible] >> why is it so important because why should a young person be free to be intimate and have sex when it's not safe over the edge number they could access a much different informion when you could go to a school in a safe environment of vetan teachers. i think it's much better. and also, what information you find i knowquite a lot of young people that would want to know about it and the only other solution is the internet because personally i wouldn't want my parents to tak about sex with my parents. i would be able to do it. i think it's better that it's taught in a safe environment rather than going to the internet for your produce a much different information. [applause] m afraid that excise the time available for speeches. please don't be upset or in any way discouraged if you didn't have the chance to speak in this debate. there were other debates upcoming as you know. if you're keen to contribute, please stand and i'll try and get as many of you as they possibly can to have your say. i call and i hope he'll give a warm welcome as i call her, ms. felicity stone hill. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, honorable speaker. i would like to thank all of you for a very valid points. sex and relationship education is a new topic to be debated and i myself am honored to be able to discuss a crucial topic with all of you today. but compulsory sex and relationship education is something that is strived for and it is something we have been campaigning for a further five years. last year we were just days away from making compulsory sre laws and yes, we did have a disappointing outcome. but i believe is a unified organization we can make the government set up and listen to r campaign. i would like to mention us as our dependence and by many others before her, that this is not just sex and sex education in the anatomy of it. this is sex and relationship educion. many believe teaching children about relationships ring on each such as primary school is finally important to their development. and those children should understand the needs of relationips, such as trust and respect. not just respect for yourself, the respect for one another. maybe with this knowledge as they mature, we can he a generation with a better attitude towards them. today we're asking what age should education be pplied? somewhat argue secondary school. the connect independent sre, said many worked successfully to provide sre, even in faith organitions with their rticular surrounding the delivery of sre. also, it was highlight this education is strongly valued by parents and young people. right now, our generation could have a much bigger view, from things such as peer pressure and as bernie mentioned,sexualized media format. and this can lead to repercussions such as teenage pregnancy, which is something for all fully aware of as we've heard so many times. this can lead to negative opinion of her generation and this is not the way that young people to be represented. i think most of us can agree that sex education is important to young people with the right education, teenagers know what to say now. so what i'm asking you today is to think about your own experiences and decide which you think could have been done differently. anything current sex education would've affected you or change her attitude toward sex and relationships today. thank you. [applause] >> felicity, thank you for winding up our debate so welk yr winding up our debate so well. the debate really has been very striking, characterized by people speaking with knowledge, with passion, with oise. and i think you'll find that the serious media will treat you with great respect because what you've done has been frankly fantastic. we now move on because it's time for the youth parliament to consider the second motion of the day related to university tuition fees have printed on the order pper. to move the motion, please give them a warm welcome. i call mr. james bartel. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as members will be aware, a few weeks ago, brian brown published his report into the future of higher education in this country. lord browne listed th cap and university tuition fees, paving the way from raising fees to an average of 6000 pounds. mr. speaker, this price in fees is absolutely necessary if we are to maintain high stanrds in our education system. the reality is that at the moment we are reaching a crisis point in university funding. many universities are starved of cash with which you cuts of some 2.9 billion pounds to university and there is a massive gap to fill. the director general of the russell group, which represents 20 of the uk's type university said we desperately need our money if we are to give students the education they deserve. mr. speaker, there is a real risk that standards and univerties will fall if investment is not sustained. but of course, mr. speaker, quality is not the only factor we should consider. turner should be at the heart of our university system. we must all remember that students do not pay a penny for their university education. you don't pay a penny until you leave. nobody will pay for their education until they've left universities, they started working and they are earning over 21,000 pounds a year. if their wages go down, so will the payment. if they stop working, the nonpayment will stop as well. mr. speaker, that is fair. because in the end, the person that benefits more from having a degree is the student. if you have a degree, yocan get better paying jobs which would be significantly harder if he didn' have a degree. it's estimated over the course they graduate with an average 23.5% more than somebody w doesn't have a degree. so why should the taxpayer has to pay for the privilege of that young person to have enough extra money? turning to the issue of debt, people are rightly worried about the level of debt they get into at universities. what they should think about, amounts they wold add to the level of national debt in this country if the taxpayer had to put a gap in the funding. the debt we get into at universities in goa, compared to the 952 billion pounds of debt, which our generation has been set but because of the economic mismanagement of the previous government. it is true and that is a record that the previous government should be ashamed of and a record for which, mr.'s weaker are yet to apologize. mr. speaker -- are back again, this is true. no mr. speaker, in this debate we have a clear choice. we can vote for bill universities come which are funded to a fair contribution from graduate or we can say no. the students don't have to pay any more. we will then have to upset that we have third-rate universities, which gives students decrease of little value. i know the choice i would go with. i hopalso share in a few and i commend this motion to the house. [applause] >> thank you for that very bust opening speech. to oppose the motion, i shall in a moment i'll mr. connor morgan. i know you'll give him a warm welcome. and i just informed members of the youth parliament. but, will say some words and irish gaelic and he will then, for all of our benefit, repeat the media in english. mr. connor morgan. [cheers and applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> loosely translated that was thank you, mr. speaker. it was a great honor to stand before you and have the opportunity to address you in irish now back to thank you for the opportunity. cop mark 70000 pounds -- the amount a student will pay is 32,000 pounds, the amount of data never suitable patit they cast the left as indicated in the steamy affair. then they put this in perspective. the average wage in the u.k. each year is 25,543 pounds. but let me ask you something. is that very reason the capital tuition fees, educational become a privilege only for those that can afford it? [cheers and applause] is it just that the members of parliament wh have an education paid for the state may expect us the innocent a disenfranchised this economic mess to pay for the mistakes ty have made. as of right turns are we as young people are considered or constantly being told we are the future? our future appears to be a burden of debt and uncertain job prospects. we are the representatives of young people. we believe education is to write that everyone should be entitled to. we do not believe the welfare class should pay a factor and we most certainly do not believe we should be expeed to begin our life trapped beneath a burden of death of up to 30,000 pounds. this also meant 5% of young people, all of whom opposed nothing. we do not think the young people in these proposals have been adequately consulted and that those who choose not only to maintain education began an enormous debt, but they are choosing to worsen an already entirely unjust circumstances. what kind of society do we live in when one of three young people choose their university based on how much it will cost them? fopanic education system allows them to be left behind? account decision makers on the latest of young people, but also make rash decisions -- i can ever pronounce this word, decision so negatively affect the lives of many. we must stand up come we must. we must send a clear message to decision-makers that our education must never be a compromise. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you and congratulations. can i just issue on appeal? i'll try not to make the mistake myself, but the appeal is if you've already spoken, please don't stand at this stage because obviously there's lots of people who have another chance to speak at an invite to give them that opportunity. perhaps we can at the young woman here. yes, you. [laughter] >> no disrespect, this young woman here. >> i'm alex from the midlands. but kind of society do we live in where you could date job where you have to go on to university and the degree is not a level. we should be able to leave school and then go get training argot apprenticeships into that. now i've got to go into debt to get a job that's not as good as we would've gotten four years ago. it's not right. [applause] >> whoever got from the northeast england? moves, got some young men here. >> thomas robinson from middlesboro d northeast. young people in bittersweet constituency by midterm report suggestions for him. and middle story we have been magnificent teesside university, which was recently named university here, the 16th out of 23 and middle spurt are socially deprived, so it's obvious that our young people do find it hard to pay to go to university, even when they're academically able. we belve the rising tuition fees will make our higher education system belly disco or the rich can afford to go and the poor cannot. and we urge the coalition government not to make such a devastating decision, which will no doubt exclude so many young people from achieving their true potential. thank you. [applause] >> someonerom london. young women here. >> barnburner boren -- [inaudible] i should go to te university next year. i suspect quite a few of you are. how michael and pay pay my tuition fees when i leave, but also how mike went to live and have a social life when i fall into the as i would get nothing. i look at the lowest amount that the government can possibly give me. how many times do you hear i learned friend from my learned colleague. there learned because they go to university. how many bmps haven't been to university? they practically all have in their charge take that away from our generation, away from us. is that really fair? [applause] >> thank you. what about somebody from the west midlands who hasn't spoken before. what about the young man here. yes. >> thank you, speaker. my name is tommy and i am from birmingham. at the universities that allow the tuition fees at 10,000 pounda year. a young student in the university will attend 50,000 pounds. working-class demands, like my constituency, may be put off and go to the uversity and following their dreams. these universities and institutions for the rich and not the initution for the talented. [applause] >> can we have somebodyfrom wales? who have the cup from wales? two people standing for miles. yeah, the young woman here. [laughter] >> how many of you live in this state? [inaudible] well, seeing as mostf you i disagree because some emily is may be able to afford their tuition fees. some may not as they might have more bigger families. but people with vigor families would stopheir childn from going to university. or would you stop them from having more children? and from my point of view, i would say to stop them -- stop the tuition fees from getting tinier as some people might not be able to afford them and some may, but the people who can't, then you should think of them more than the people who can. [appuse] >> thank you. what about the southeast? what about the young gentleman here? yes. >> the young man from buckingham. may i point out that the government has promised that should university tuition fees dropthere will be enough money to get from student loans or more scholarships to cover the cost? now i actually think that th government nd the loan repayment threshold actually puts them into a different decision because they will have more money and they may not get it back. yeah, 40% cuts in the university budget are over four years. it is inevitable that we have to stand against it because simply we can't. what we should focus on now is how much university fees will rise by, whether there were still be a cap or not. whether we're going to turn into a free market, where universities and churches much as they play. [applause] >> to do we have somebody would like to contribute from the east of england? i think the young woman in the back is out to explode. [laughter] 's >> thank you, speaker. i am from the university and i am very proud of what i'm doing right now. when i had about tuition going up, the next day it was shocking. there were -- discerning mac i do not agree with what he is doing. you have the ability of what it's causing. add value to get a career, not a jot. i don't think you should say you have go and you don't need a degree. but i want to get a degree. the one tng i've realized, cleverly, with economics, they said just recently, that there is a public or universities, that they go private. this is a process that happens in america and we see how unspent our process is in america that sees bitterly equaling encourager blames the amount we pay and i? i be horrified to have to leave to the death of 50,000 pounds. it's a privile we have the universities in the u.k. so lord browne, please consider them because i do not agree personally as students who have to now think about okay, if the university. it's a massive thing. anto conclude one argument that i won't say about lord browne. there is a standard in terms of the points. future taken into account the budget for them to pay. students will not be eligible for financial report integrates were below the standards. so what is the standard to detain universities? [applause] >> i'm looking for a speaker from yorkshire and humberside. we've got a whole gathering of you there. what about the young woman with blond hair. yes, yes. >> i just like to say that in 2008, i actually headed in the house of lords and for abolishing university tuition fees. in two years time i still agree that it should be not to your son where we are by what we wanted and was to lower it to not have existed soever and cut e education they deserved. and it's not working that way. i understand the universities need the funding, but if i'm coming from somewhere else, i mean, not two days. not completely. wiout the other other day trying to write for next year. i thought this one screen and i could think about was the death of money and how much i wanted to go and how much i knew there's nothing more that i want to go to university. i've always wanted to go. that's something i've always wanted to do. and now i'm doubting whether i can. thank you. [applause] 's >> can we have a speaker from northern ireland, please, which is what we're looking for. [inaudible] .. [applause] [unintelligible] [inaudible] we cannot fund gorn more people. we live in america -- and i believe it would create more of an aristocracy. [applause] >> it is ti for somebody from the northwest. and actually, the moment they girls are out doing the boy so we need to call young men at this stage. peter, is it you? yes indeed it is you welcome. >> i represent -- and like to jog your attention to -- [inaudible] i wonder if you can tell me what is there about this. students at the moment pay the same that those locally, so in the e.u. if you came from the e.u. to study in scotland, you pay what the scots pay, which is nothing. if i were to study in scotland i would have to pay 1175 pounds probably more. i live in the e.u.. i am english and i can't study in scotland for the same money. how on earth is that fair? [applause] >> what about the young man just at the end of that little court if? you, you are looking around. no, the check to your right. yes, you. indeed. welcome. >> ben lacy. the government can't afford to put any more money into the university system, which is what is causing this rice to each individual in student fees, but the other option is, the truth is thereare too many people being driven into universities when it is not the right option for them. more partnerships and more work placement would mean less strain n the university system and allow government to fund those spaces and give them the education they need, without driving up debt to that individual. [applause] >> okay, you have been waiting very patiently. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the academies education system should return to the latest system. when a brown report is adopted the coalition -- we are told with a the kaplan piece we will have no effect on young people. opinion such as this demonstrate how to -- even going as far as to cutting at the annual program which encourages youg people to attend the university. generation of politicians that attend universities for free and sure thousands of disadvantaged youn people from reaching their potential. no that there is going to be the university tuition fees, the future jobs bunch of benefit and of course surely young people are in a more than most [applause] >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest. can we have a female speaker from the southwest? okay, your good self. >> i am from dublin. just some rough numbers here. a three-year degree for the current university levy, 9900 pounds. student accommodation for the first tier 150 pounds a week in 40 weeks is 6000-pound. the second year 52 weeks, 9100-pound, 9100-pound. books for degree each year, 300-pound, transport to and from university per and am 500-pound. this gives a conservative total of 35,500 pounds. now consider raising the levy for the university bradon. recalculate this total and you get 46,000 pounds and 600 plus 2.5% above inflation. now consider a medical degree for seven years, and then if someone wants to go to a university the cost could go up to 12-pound a year. now in effect this is discriminating against young people from poor backgrounds and i believe that everyone shoul be born into the world with an equal rights to succeed. even though this is never going to be achieved i think that we should try and move one step further towards at or in this case, prevent the government from moving a step backwards. thank you. [applause] >> here here, thank you. once again time is their enemy and to conclude the debate i do need to call mr. daniel palmer. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. i've always wanted to say that. there it is. what do you think the effect would be if tuition fees were to rise? thats a question i've been asking young people and they came back to me and said that people fromlow or middle income families will be put off from going to the university, causing them to be institutions for the rich only. they said a rise in tuition fees would also cause the gap between the rich and the poor to increase and said it would be unfair that people whonnot afford to go to university should be deprived of the opportunities of those who can't. now there has been a lot of strong support and justification for a rise in tuition fees. some of these being tha universities and always the right path ferber want to go down to get a higher paying job but the rich should be promoted by the government said said his apprenticeships come and college education. they argue it is a rise in tuition fees would deter people to fool around for a couple of years at the taxpayers expense and set the reducing member people which go to university increases the value amhe worth of a degree. fairness. it has been mentioned in the media quite a lot recently and also in this house today. i would like to ask the house to think about these following questions before they vote. is it fair that the people who cannot afford to go to university don't have the same opportunities than those who n't afford to do so? equally, sit there that the taxpayers should pay for your education en you take all the benefits? youthparliament. should university tuition fees rise? [applause] >> thank you for another lively and well-informed debate, which i hope you enjoy it. again i say to people who didn't get called, don't despair. have another go. this i'm afraid is the daily experience of colleagues when noally the demand to speak exceeds the number of slots available. youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the day and the last of the morning session, relating to jo opportunities as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call mr. mohammad abbas honey if. [applause] >> thank youmr. speer. mr. speaker members of the youth parliament, education i the passport to the future for tomorrow belongs to those who favor it today. how many of us are prepared at 16? how many employers want to employ 16-year-olds in the current economic climate? by giving young people to extra years of school or training are giving them breathing space. an extra two years to gain additional skills, an extra two years to prepare but most importantly a possible two years in the -- y. through 16 euros out in the cold economic climate right now when we can do something about this? that is why support raising the agto 18 immediately. the school age is rising to 18, however survey opportunities for young people are decreasing month by month. cuts haven't been implement it everywhere. young people are finding it difficult to get jobs or even internships as older more educated people are taking them. the office for national statistics shows there are currently 742,000, 18 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed. some may save the school isn't for everyone and not everyone is an academic but let me ask you something. who said you have to our your head intbooks for another two years? who said you have to do exams for another two years? you can do practical partnerships and part-time education or training if you are employed, self-employed. as we heard last week at this very -- releasing another 490,000 jobs. is that there? is that fair for 16-year-old to leave school knowing that 490,000 jobs are being cut and his or her chances have become even more difficult? is met there for them to another o years and possibly have a stronger case to gain a ob when the economy has recovered? the extra two yeas also gives the government time to source more jobs for those who inte to leave education at 18. this way young people have time to build more academic or practical skills be a training countant or a decorator. work experience is another major factor. one experience is not enough for young people to decide which course they want to choose and turn into the future career. work experience provides invaluable experience. provides people to learn directly about working life and allows them -- i believe we need more experience. some people may say that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to choose to go to work or stay in school or training. simple answer to that is, how in this climate will a 16-year-old be able to find a job that so many others are fighting for the job with education and experience? being unemployed at such a young age has a long-term impact. do we really want is for young people? this isn't about me or you. is is about us are going to stick together and work on the bigger picture, getting our young people the best possible start in life in tough times. i believe staying in school until 18 is the way forward. thank you are very much. [applause] steam ahamed, thank you forthat splendid and articulate speech to open our debate. just before i called the second speaker to oppose the motion i would like to mention that jim dobbin, my parliamentary colleagues from the northwest if memory serves me heywood and middleton is present and behind him, looking suitably self-effacing as in beer but this is the honorable gentleman from aldrich brown hills mr. richard epherd. so we will welcome him. [applause] and last but not definitely not least i think lurking behind the chair is the honorable gentleman, the member from bowls over, mr. dennis skinner. [applause] i want very warmly to welcome dennis, because he is a parliamentarian o has always spoken his mind without fear or favor on every subject, and if memory serves me correctly, he entered the house on june 18th,. and he has served without interruption since, for 40 years, four months and 11 days. he is a very senior member. dennis you are very welcome. [applause] >> strayed from the coal face dennis just said to me. thank you dennis for eing with us and giving your encouragement. tony baer who retired from a house in 2001, famously said, and not with dennis's, tony blair said any purpose of the oldest to give encouragement to the young. so there we are. to oppose the motion i call mr. adam osmond. [applause] >> thank you very much for this opportunity for everybody here to get a new facebook profile picture. [laughter] allen sugar, richard bronson, delius smith, three people who built themselves u from nothing, three people who worked hard for what they wanted, three people who got where they wanted to be. but what do all of these people have in common? they all left school at 16. i am not for one minutes ago suggesting that everyone should go out and get a job when they are 16 because we all know that the jobs are simply not out there. the point is, everyone should have a conscious choice to continue with education or get a job at 16. nobody should be forced into education against their will. that is a presumption frankly originating from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 18 and in a time of cuts, that is ludicrous. education is not for everyone. and i appreciate it has been said already that this motion does not just include education by training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due the cuts last week, it will be harder than ever to find these placements. the work connections did to get young people into apprenticeships and training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. these people who would have left and found a job at 16 will be forced to say in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there is a point in my area. a nice little plug. his father's a owner of a local sweets shop. the boy helped out with his father in the shop for generations, as generations have gone before. when he turned 16, his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really saying they wish to see this family sweet shop and other businesses sold up the cassette 16 he has to be in educatio ad is clearly not mature enough to run a business? nowadays, employers increasingly preferred to take on workers who have ample work experience needed to do thejob. so by writing the age of 818 -- 18 u. of two years less work experience compared to somebody who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifications? one life experiences more valuable than anything. extend this to the end f the university. you will have six years less work experience than a graduate of the same age. what does the graduate have? eighth two-2-degree in klingon, a 40,000-pound debt and they are unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years solve our nation's youth unemployment crisis? the swer, it doesn't. [applause] >> i'm looking to call people from parts of the country is so far have been slightly underrepresented in the debate and beginning with wales. somebody from wales who wants to speak. the young man there, please. >> josh from wales. given today's economic climate this country does not have the money to fund qualifications to some people who to be frank don't want them. there are some people who are quite happy to leave school at 16 and go work in a shop. there are some people who are quite happy to settle down, have a family and live on jobseekers allowance for the rest of their lives. i don't see how these qualifications will benefit them. it is a total waste of money. [applause] >> thank you. see we have enjoined by the honorable member from birmingham, give us a wave. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. i'm looking to call someone from the west midlands. the young man there at the end who just had his hand up. >> a new recent survey conducted by -- we found one in three young people who don't receive engh support from education system. is the pride we failed these young people for an extra two years? you don't agree that education becomes about passing exams. we need to change this and change education so we are producing branded young people that have the skills to go into employment, to go to university and only then can we meet society's demand and take our education system into the 21st century. [applause] >> i'm looking from someone from london. hands up, somebody from london. the young woman there. yes, your good self. >> i represent london. ladies and gents, can we take into consideration that the government would like to cut people like -- as well as they are now hiring the age to 18 for people to take -- stay in school. they want people to go and stay until 18. however, they want to cut down the people that get into university. at the end of the day, the people that get their extra qualifications and get into university have -- we have lowered our hired the age of joe bartonames. who is going to get a job to pay that muchebt off? everyone says education is not for everyone. some people wanted in some people don't. internships and job opportunities and -- is named for people. academics and education and to get our heads in the books is needed for others. can we think about this wisely? wasting money and saying how people cannoinvest and how the lady back of the band said that she actually wants to learn not get a career but learn to get her degree. can we take this into consideration, please? thank you. [applause] >> i'm looking tocall from someone from the east of england. who is from the east of england? a young woman there. you deserve to be called because i lled you earlier and someone thought that i was calling them so go ahead. >> to consider that the motion is not to keep everybody and lessons until they are 18 is to keep them in education, not necessarily in books. we can have apprenticeships, work experience and work with books alongside job opportunities. everybody knows what they want to do at 16. i am fortunate that i know what i want to do at 16 but not everybody does. keeping them in education for two more years might help them gaining an idea of what they want to do when they are older plus the rising university fees the government is insisting on would have not help to get more qualifications to help them get a better job in the future? [alause] >> yorkshire and humber side. yorkshead humber side. sir, let's hear from you. >> i think not everybody is capable to stay on after they are 16. nick brwer. everybody is capable to stay on the extra two years. i think the have got to make the choice whether they want to, whether it is right for them. because of the cuts in the loss of the connections and most parts of the u.k. due to the cuts it is going to hinder their choice to decide whether they want to stay or not. of. [applause] >> someone from northern ireland. the young man here has been patiently waiting. >> alex easton from east belfast in northern ireland. i think it is an absolute disgrace that people are sitting here to say that i should be dictated to and told i have to leave school at 18. if i want to leave school at 16 i should be entitled to prepare if you raise the age to 18, how long until they risa to 21 and the tuition fees thing, what is going to happen to that? we live in a state where we are controlled and watched in the thought of controlling our education even more is an absolute disgrace. thank you. [applause] >> how about somebody from the east midlands? yes, the young woman here from the east midlands. yesterday, you. >> i'm from east midlands. personally i think making the age to 18 will benefit the statistics involved with youth unemployment. but it won't hide the fact that the financial problems young people face. i realize you need a job and you are at college and i am not amazed that any money i get at the moment is from my parents. and the fact that ama -- people whose parents have a lot lss are going to struggle a lot more. so i think that raising the age isn't going to benefit in any way. [applause] >> thank you. somebody from the northwest. hands up from the northwest. what about the young man there with a checkered shirt. to. >> if education is made compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, it will be disruptive and more vocational cause will be wasted in a way. this will make the standard of the drop and could affect those who want to be in college. thank you. [applause] >> somebody from the southwest. yes, the woman here with a red blouse. >> i'm vicki from -- people think in education is not necessary to the employment. for many peop education does lead to a better job. to some it doesn't. gordon ramsey for example left school at 16. he is now worth 67 million pounds, much more than most people believe school at 18. staying on at 18, he could've got in 1-800-level. perhaps he could have done free technology learn the same skills that he now has but not as good. it wouldn't have been any good to him. and if he had not stayed in school he would have been in a class full of peopleho maybe didn't want to learn, may be disrupted the class of people have already mentioned. and that could have ruined his life chances. many young people, staying in education is essential for them. young people should be given the choice. may be encouraged to stay in encouraged to benefit and improve their life chances but no force. young people desire the choice. [applause] >> thank you. someone from the northeast. what about the young man right at the back? >> tom hunter. i think ladies and gentlemen we are thinking too much of statisti at the moment. i think we need to remember that these are real young people we are talking about. we need to remember that they should have a chance is at the age of 16, you can decide whether not to engage in sexual activity. you can decide whether or not you want to go and fight in the armed forces. why it 16 can you decide whether or not to leave education? we need to make it clear to young people what it is like out there if we are going to send them out at the age of 16, because then if we do change it, if we do raise it to 18, then they could choose whether or not to stay. so we just need to make sure we give young people the choice because that is the only fair thing to do. thank you. [applause] >> and a further interest from wales? yes, the one -- the young woman there. >> i think we have to acknowledge we have got a problem now in the a lot of young people especially in this room will be finding we do have this problem now with an increase in the number of young people looking to go into university fewer young people are leaving school at 16like our pants generation did but this is the problem i think is going to get a lot worse if we choose to raise the leaving compulsory age to 18. i can see hat money, which could be a substantial sum, would be put into an extra two years of education could be spent so much more wisely on structured placements up to the age of 16-year-olds that will not only help those who do choose to leave school at 16 to get a job and move more seamlessly into the world of rk butthose who then choose actually to stay on until 18 and go through to university to compete that much more easily because i'm sure a lot of you he know experience is the magic word for university of at the moment. [applause] >> the southeast. whoever got from the southeast? yes, the young woman here who has been standing several times. >> thank you mr. speaker. melissa cham from southeast england. i feel personally, i am sure all of you have been aware of the troublemakers in the class of people who can't wait to get their gs at sea over with. i've always felt a anoints believe that people who want to carry on their education will do so i'm not necessarily a holiday regardless but an academic such as master english or maybe go into performing arts. there are apprenticeships, there were placements and where we can fund the extra money into more education for 16 to 18-year-olds instead of making it mandatory, making it optional. so if you do want to go into education after your gcse, you know you have the security and support. if you don't want to necessarily go to college you might want to do in a partnership than you think i would love to become a plumber or a carpenter at how do i go about doing that? so, thank you. [applause] >> i'm afraid we have run out of time for speeches. just before i called the person who will conclude the debate, i would like to refer to another row or colleagues who has just entered the chamber and i am referring to the member for west ambassador. j. simpson, give us a way. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to mention joe for two reasons. if memory serves make correctly when she came into the house of commons at the age of 25 she was the youngest member in her intake, and secondly, she has been a champion of youth centers, youth participation in youth empowerment from the moments he set foot in th house of commons. is absolutely right and drop or she should be here today and i think we will take an example from her. [applause] so, thank you once again for some first-class speeches with different opinions and sincerely expressed with real knowledge and fluency d passion. i think all of us today who said in the house of commons on a daily basis are incredibly impressed by what we occurred. to conclude the debate i call ms. holly maddy on the. [appuse] >> thank you mr. speaker. my name is holly and i'm from the youth council. do i hear you ask yourself what job opportunities are available to you? ould you be educated until 18? are you competing for jobs with people more experienced and qualified than you are? this is extremely common in our current economic climate. will race in the school and training leaving age to 18 solve youth unemployment and fix these problems? 71% of young people already say say -- stay in education until they are 18 but it is a 29% we need to consider today. those of you who are academic, you can go on to higher education, but just take a moment to think of those who are not like you, those who struggle with education or maybe who don't understand the level. by increasing the inventory h. immediately will this give the government time to reduce the current unemployment figures? in two years time imagine this. one, and even higher number of people competing for university spaces. how many jobs are there to accommodate the number of graduates? two the qualifications that don't include practical skills required, could they not have been getting this experience in the previous two years? unemployment is higher amongst young people aged 19 to 25. what unemployment levels reduced significany enough to warrant spending 60 million pounds annually on 16 to 18-ear-olds? that we not just witnessed the biggest cuts to public spending in living memory? keeping young people in education will give them the opportunity to experience mulled zabul were placements empowering them to make informed career decisions. if you were toeave at 16, would work experience be more beneficial from the age of 14 before you choose your subject? or if we were to wait until 18, could there be a focus on work experience for all students, academic or not or would this be too late to influence our way of thinking? either way, more work experience will create ambition amongst young people today. so the motion we are faced today with is should the school and education leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to over youth unemployment? is it guaranteed that unemployment levels will reduce? i have come here today with my long-winded speech padded out with statistics. i sound like a politician, this is not about you ad i debating in the house of comons although we maynjoy it. this is about young people's lives. those in university and those on street corners. jobs are vital to create self-esteem, confidence, optimism and a positive approach to life in general. there are two simple sides to this. yes, or no. if we say yes, raise it to 18, the unemployment figures will decrease, but they are just figures, just numbers and just statistics. will those young people be happy? will they be getting the education that they need? and is it affordable? uniform costs, equipment, school dinners. are they going to be given more opportunities for work experience and will they feel more prepared for the working world? the other side is to stay at 16. unemployment figures know they will not alter, but young people will have a choice just as you you -- united nations for the rights of the child states we should have. will young people be happier? did the know what they want at 16? is it stereotypical of us to ask are they bored hanging around on the street corners? committing crime, or is this just reality? bearing in mind that those are the young people that will be competing for jobs with university graduates. remember that 29%. the decisions we make here today, guess they are important, but how the politicians respond to what we have said, what we have voted on, will be the life changing for the generation of young people. [applause] >> thank you holly for rounding off in such. that concludes the morning session of our sitting. the youth parliament will now adjourned until 1:30 and i invite everyone to return in a moment to wesminster hall for lunch. however because we started late, we are a little behind schedule and lunch will have to be truncated somewhat. can i just just therefore emphasize to people to be back by 1:30 when we must start or afternoon session. you do you need to start coming back from westminster hall at 1:15 so a very brief lunch and then we will continue. thank you. you have acquitted yourself with great distinction. >> portraits of been in afghanistan for days not knowing if they will step on an itt -- our troops have been in afghanistan for days not knowing if they will step on and ied. to many dead british citizens. we should not be pouring more money into this afghan war. it is too much. 20 billion pounds by the end of this year that the government will have spent on this war. this government should learn from tony blair's mistakes. the government cannot expect us to accept all of these cuts and spend the small -- as much money on more. is it money well spent? the first few months of this year, 3268 civilians died. this is not the taliban or warlords. war isernment's say the justified because of the infringement on human rights. one not invade zimbabwe or north korea? -- why not invade in zimbabwe or north korea? what are they so different? one person lks down the street and does not know if she will be killed by a roadside bomb or get shot. there has been massive negative financial impact. this government is killing innocent human beings. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that forceful introduction into the debate. to oppose the motion, i hope you will welcome him. [unintelligible] [applause] >> 2012 and we pull out. terrorism propels by 2013. we wipe away years of taliban terror. we have to deal with this threat. until their soldiers are at a place where they can deal with themselves and secure the area. this is needed to mentor and train afghan armies to maintain the authority. thenwe've done that job, we can get out. they need to rebuild the underground leadership structure that was taking complete control before we came. [unintelligible] there is a great shadow over afghanistan. can we cut this cancer from this country? some are asking more trivial questions. can we afford to be in the afghanistan area any longer? should we run away to save so many pounds a day. i say no. you cannot put a price on the things we are fighting for. these are people's lives and families. the liberty of the people are -- is at stake. [applause] i say the question that really need to be asking ourselves is one of conscious. there is blood and violence in sierra leone and others to protect the lives of the oppressed. why shouldn't be any different now? afghanistan is not iraq. some appeal for the u.n. for troops. because some were committing the most heinous of atrocities. and're torturing members having women as second-class members of society. the taliban has killed over 10,000 innocent afghans since 2001 who have done nothing wrong. the afghan people deserve better. they deserve better than tierney and corruption. they deserve to live as free people. we should provide that liberty while we are there. i cannot agree with the notion that we should withdraw soon. we need to change how we talk about the war immediately. we need to declare decisively what we mean by victory. victory would be honoring the innocent victims in afghans and the soldiers that have died so far. victory would be a step forward to afghanistan into an age of self-reliance and honest governance. leaving now would put in a risk the nine years that our brave troops have spent trying to heal this wounded nation. this conflict began because the government of afghanistan asked us for help. they were not the ones who needed us. i believe the real victory is the genuine difference we have made at a grassroots level to the people of afghanistan. i say freedom over fascism for the people of afghanistan for however long it takes. [applause] >> thank you for that contribution. we have got off to a fire crackling start. before we go any further, i'd like to welcome this person. of she is not a member parliament, but i would like to welcome my wife. [applause] she is a key supporter of this institution. thanks for coming. i'd like to ask the woman at the back to kick off. i think she is from the southwest. >> british forces, germany. this is a big issue from my area. it does affect us. many people have parents that have been to afghanistan are in afghanistan. it is true that we hold great pride in never troops and are very proud of them. we are holding up a government that is causing us to lose bible human lives. these -- valuable human lives. these are not just soldiers but people who have families left behind. they have families and friends. the army is a close-knit community. when someone dies, it kills every little part of that person that was in everybody else in the community. i do not know if you have ever lost a vital member of your family, but it brings your entire world to a crashing halt. imagine waking up to find out that your dad is gone and never will return. he has died in you will never ever see him again. imagine the heartbreak. it has to stop. we have to stop torturing these families. we do not want them to die in vain. our heroes have been given a job that the government refuses to equip them properly for. how can you win a war with one set of armor between three soldiers? why are we sending their if we cannot afford to equip them? it is a crime to put someone who is unequipped in front of a bullet just as much as it is for someone to shoot a gun. [applause] we find it even more difficult to answer this timetable. we force people's families are out of their. -- there. it would be wise to make sure that the afghan government is stable before really. our army can achieve that if we concentrate on it now. we want to bring our boys home to get a of a triumphant return. [applause] >> thank you for that. i am looking for a contributor from the west midlands. the young woman here. >> we have talked about conscious. thousands of civilians are dying due to the crossfire. many young men and women have died since the war. it is many more compared to thousands of other casualties. [unintelligible] [applause] >> somebody from your shirt. -- yorkshire. >> it is important to remember many of those fighting in losing their lives in afghanistan are young people. they are friends, family, neighbors. our support for them is unwavering. mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers losing their lives, and with the government spending billions does causing us to face financial cuts domestically, is this war beneficial to both the citizens of both nations th? [unintelligible] [applause] >> east of england? >> when we first entered afghanistan, it was for the honor of this country to invade a country to bring it to a democracy. now we have lost lives, our approval rating has gone down. we no longer approve of this war. where is the honor of abandoning a country that we initially invaded? our soldiers want to fight in this war. it is their job. they love what they are doing. why should we pull them out from something they enjoy doing and send them back into a country -- they will be working but not doing what they are trained to do when we have yet the honor to do this. they want to fight. iay

Transcripts For CSPAN George W 20101127