Latest Breaking News On - Mike mullen - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For FBC Lou Dobbs Tonight 20130916

full coverage of the shooting rampage here tonight. also, we will be bringing you a live report about what federal health officials now classify as an urgent threat to the health of all americans. the centers for disease control have issued a landmark report estimating for the first time ever how many people died from drug-resistant bacteria each year. the numbers are truly startling. john roberts will have that report from the centers for disease control. and clearing skies in colorado have given officials a first look at the devastation after a week of torrential rain and what some have called the local flooding. at least seven people are known dead. more than 600 people are unaccounted for. more than 1,000 people remain stranded, needing to be rescued. the rain and flooding destroyed or damaged some 19,000 homes. the latest on what is now the largest aerial rescue operation since hurricane katrina. in the latest from wall street where today the dow jones industrials rallied. the dow up triple digits after former treasury secretary larry summers took himself out of the running to lead the federal reserve. investors are interpreting the results of this withdrawal to be continued easing money policies and the rally ensued. we begins tonight with the tense day long drama after u.s. navy command complex in our nation's capital. shocks -- shots rang out. eyewitnesses describe a six-foot tall ball african american carrying an ar-15 semiautomatic rifle. he was later identified as air alexis, a former sailor who is to test from service and to those 11. washington d.c. mayor vincent gray acknowledged that no one knows what could have led to the shocking tragedy or how many people are involved. >> many people have asked us whether we think that there is terrorism involved. we don't know what the motive is at this stage. obviously we will continue to seek information about what the motive is, but we don't have any reason at this stage to suspect terrorism. certainly it has not been ruled out. lou: this is the worst shooting rampage since last december's massacre. twenty children and six adults were killed. this is also the deadliest on the u.s. military installation since 13 people were killed at fort hood taxes in 2009. as mayor gray said, the motive behind today's shooting remains unknown. survivors and relatives of those killed at fort hood say today's attack at the navy yard brings back tough memories for them. many of those families still petitioning the government to change the classification of that shooting from an act of workplace violence to a terrorist attack in order to receive more benefits and combat rent--- combat-related pay. president obama forced to address today's tragedy. the fifth anniversary of the start of the great recession. the president expressed sympathy before going ahead with the speech containing deep partisan attacks against republicans ahead of next month's budget and debt ceiling deadlines. fox news chief white house correspondent ed henry has our report. >> it was supposed to be yet another pivot. this time trying to shift away from syria. although with a mass shooting at the navy are delaying his remarks briefly, the demint -- the event became a tribute to the victims with the pit into a series of attacks on republicans >> we will do everything in our power to make sure whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible. in the meantime we send our thoughts and prayers to all at the navy yard you have been touched by this tragedy. >> after a brief mention of syria the president marked the fifth anniversary of the financial crisis by unleashing a series of attacks alleging republicans are not focused on growing the economy at this moment. >> i say at the moment because i am sttll open that a light bulb goes off here. some of these folks really so beholden to one extreme wing of their party that they're willing to take the entire economy just because they cannot get their way on this issue. >> the president managed to work in an attack on mitt romney over health care. >> an issue in last year's election, and the candidate to call for repeal lost. >> today about the town of those remarks in the middle of an active manhunt. the white house did not consider calling off the speech and said it was appropriate to keep the pressure on republicans over the looming budget crisis. >> they insisted on a process whereby budgets were passed in the senate and house and now republicans have blocked the process of reconciliation. >> the bigger challenge is heat from his own party. house democrats who defied him over his push to get congressional approval for military action against syria to senate democrats who are intent on blocking the potential nomination of larry summers, prompting him to abruptly pulled out of consideration for the chairmanship of the federal reserve. an urgency in just over the last half-hour or so. two or three loud pops heard on the north lawn of the white house. you probably see some of those pictures. the secret service took this seriously. many officers with guns drawn. torras ceiling after they heard a loud noise which sounded like gunshots. the secret service spokesman as telling us that it was some sort of fireworks, firecrackers turn over the fence toward the residence. bottom line is the lawn is still cleared out of an abundance of caution. the secret service investigates to make sure that there are no weapons. there is one person who is in custody. lou: there is every reason for an abundance of caution. thank you very much. clear and convincing evidence that chemical weapons were used during an attack and syria last month. the report fails to point and just to launch the attack. that report comes after a weekend agreement between u.s. and russian emissaries to and the syrian chemical weapon program. joining me now former federal prosecutor. the prosecution of the 1993 world trade center bombings and former pentagon official katie mcfarland. let's start with the weekend agreement. your reaction? >> i think obama was bailout. it will be at a price. we have yet to see what that is. at a minimum is going to be the syrian leader stays in power. what concerns me in the immediate sense is what president obama is down in this agreement about syria is to say we are not going to use force. the united states defers the use of force until something comes out. so in effect what we have done is outsourced the decision on whether to use force. i think this is where the big price is, what happens. the important meeting is happening. the iranians and russians are sitting down and there will talk about the air defense system. why this is important is it becomes more less and vulnerable to an israeli attack. let's say this all syrian thing strings out for nine months to a year. by then russia will have delivered this it defense system and he wants syria. at the end of all of this. >> the deal has always been preposterous. it was never real to begin with. the russians are probably among the worst violators of the chemical weapons convention in terms of what they declared, in terms of the fact that after all of these years they have not destroyed with the said that there were going to destroy and that they are suspected of proliferating. that is to you have put in charge -- not you, lou. that is to the president has basically indulge their idea of putting in charge of whether they're client cleans up its act. i must say, i continue to think this whole thing was a pretext. obama want to jump in on the side of the so-called rebels who are rife with muslim brotherhood he could not make a straight face case. he sees on the chemical weapons thing and this phony red line which turns out not to be a red line about something that is an international norm the terms of not to be such a norm. lou: not the norm, not a standard as being enforced by the international community whether the institution is nato or the united nations. time magazine 34 in editions, on the cover. let's show everyone. it is fascinating to me. we will start with what you see there. america is weak, russia is resurgent and does not care what anyone thinks. the story on paying college athletes. it is sort of interesting to see what time magazine thinks of its readers. >> this is time magazine. and i'm paid political announcements perry made fun of the united states, made fun of two presidents of the united states and at the end it enveloped a guide to say that he was on his side. i found that that was just preposterous. somehow running an alternative version of events. >> but it was going to the new york times in particular because the only repeat what has been written in the new york times fell last what you're 30 years. that was -- but the mainstream media has gone from being a mere cheerleader for the democrats on the left actually being an abject. this is one of the most blatant examples, but it is hardly the only one. lou: this is that time magazine cover, frankly eliminating. it's a very clear that they do not want to tell the american people what has happened. president obama and his negotiation has moved to primacy in the middle east has initiated he has right now far more standing than president obama has are likely as a lame duck his foreign policy is at best eroding if not utterly in shambles and has no chance to recover. >> if you are in the middle east right now, a dictator, potentate, who are you going to trust? he has supported the warwick and pulled the rug out. so he had a libyan dictatorship and distorted. syria. the reformer. then he had to go. the red line command now we are negotiating. i think you are right. the critical thing in the middle east is in a matter of weeks obama has undone what for 40 years kept the peace. lou: the house oversight community has come down. it was not comprehensive. interviews were not enough. i thought it was a tame rendering of what transpired. it was a committee that was handpicked by secretary clinton who was one of the major figures involved in the controversy. and then it did not undertake to even interview some of the main witnesses including secretary clinton. lou: or any survivor of the attack. that to me is the most incomprehensible aspect of all of the omissions, and there are many in this report. >> it goes to show yet again that if congress does not push this we will not get anywhere close to the bottom of it, and it cannot be allowed to die. for americans continue to be dead in what turns out to have been an act of war and we have no accountability for it. >> now in the second year of what has been a highly successful stonewalled by this a ministration. thank you very much for being with us. much more on the syrian chemical weapons agreement reached over the weekend to route tonight's broadcast. we will examine some of its weaknesses and failings. larry summers withdraws from consideration to lead the fed, and markets respond with a rally. why would they do that? risk-management on that, the markets, and the next chairman of the fed. ♪ the pursuit of a better tomorrow is something we all share. but who can help you find your own path? who can build you a plan, not just a pie chart? who can help keep your investments on course, whatever lies ahead? that someone is a morgan stanley financial advisor. and we're ready to work for you. nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social mediaenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans. bjorn earns unlimited rewas for his small business take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your walle [ crows ] now where's the snooze button? ♪ lou: on wall street stocks finished mixed after larry summers pulled out of the running for federal reserve chairman. the dow gaining 119 points. the s&p up ten, nasdaq contributing a four-point decline. volume on the big board picking up from yesterday. joining me now with his outlook from these markets and what is going on, risk management founder. good to have you with this. this list is the markets, and i mean global markets. i would have bet a lot of money that that was not going to work out by the end of the day. >> hopefully you did. it was kind of an ethnic decline. for the future is to be indicated that some much of this kind of a datapoint. to be clear, there is really no better evil here in terms of picking one of the two. for us one of the big signals is that gold was down. that just insinuates that may be money printing is over no matter who it is. lou: the idea that we will see a tapir, i was looking for conclusive indicators that would lead all of these dewars to suggest that tape during his coming out. tapering is coming and $10 billion charges. what do you expect to happen? >> what i expected to seek continue tapering. she is kind of robot in this regard. she will be plugged in to be less sluggish. think that is what is really starting to pop. people's expectation of a bond bubble, gold bubble, anything that a slow growth. all this stuff is starting to break down. that is the inevitable reality. we are past the peak in terms of money printing expectations. lou: her expectations, we will find out. six and and a half percent unemployment is a real number that has real implications for fed policy. inflation fed to a half percent is a real number. she will insist on that. and she wants a candy rock mountain here of easy money policies. you are suggesting that there may be some nuanced interpretation that is more correct. >> i think there is no new ones at all. in the gold market or the bond market that is about to start to crash, the market is starting to tell you that she could completely lose control which is the point. you get central planners see what your candy mountain or a smoothing mechanism that they can control. that can only go on for so long, and she will have a chairman his uphill battle. lou: what happens? >> that is the way that it plays out. was likely she would get the handoff. bernanke and there will attempt to communicate the smooth transition when there is nothing smooth about it. all of these balls are starting to pop. lou: the president used the expression smooth veneer, which has been -- i mean, there has been nothing lanier or smooth. this gets kind of interesting. are we going to see the great rotation? you talked about for the bond market. are we going to see it? the we going to see that? >> big time. you're seeing people pretty much try to call the top in equities every month. there is a new catalyst every month. at the end of the day the epic bubble that is already in motion topping is the bond bubble 50530-year bonds will perpetuated by bernanke. if gold is any preview, is down 203%. there is not going to be year. this will be a rotation that perversely perpetuates these higher highs. lou: we appreciate it. good to have you with this. now to the weekend box office. looking for a good scare, folks pushed another low-budget horror movie to box office sites. sounds charming. they are viewed in first place. forty-one to be exact. that's more than eight times what it costs to make pa three times with the first movie earned back in 2011. that's business. relatively -- relativity media. fourteen and a half million. last week's number one universal's rate drops to third place. a lousy $7 million. up next, the rise of the super bug. the centers for disease control with a shocking morning on drug-resistant bacteria and how many americans aren't risk. john roberts with our live report next. ♪ no two people have the same financial goals. pnc investments works with you to understand yours and helps plan for your retirement. talk to a pnc investments financial advisor today. ♪ ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. peace of mind is important when so we provide it services you bucan rely on. with centurylink as your trusted it partner, you'll experience reliable uptime for the network and services you depend on. multi-layered security solutions keep your information safe, and secure. and responsive dedicated support meets your needs, and eases your mind. centurylink. your link to what's next. [ alarm sound for malfunctioning printer ] [ male announcer ] you've reached the age where you've learned a thing or two. [ metal clanks ] ♪ this is the age of knowing what you're made of. so why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? [ gears whirring ] talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. [ cellphone beeps ] this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. ♪ lou: the centers for disease control today released a shocking report on drug-resistant diseases in this country. this cdc warned that the spread of these super bugs and the abuse of antibiotic drugs by the medical community could one day in danger america and develop into a national catastrophe for americans. fox news senior national correspondent john roberts in atlanta with our live report. >> good evening. it is already in danger in society because this problem even though we talked about it many times or four is getting much worse. the centers for disease control tonight is issuing a very, very urgent warning about the proliferation of dangerous bacteria that are either resistant to were downright immune to even our most powerful antibiotics, and for the very first time they have calculated the number of illnesses and deaths. let's put it up on the screen. 2 million people and made sick by these antibiotic resistant bacteria. 23,000 of them die. the centers for disease control directed, we are facing a health crisis in this country. >> well we have seen is as we have developed new antibiotics every time a new one comes out there are some bacteria that gradually grow quickly. and now we're seeing a situation where some bacteria have resistance to virtually all antibiotics. >> for the first time they have brought together the 18 most dangerous microbes and rent them according to the threat that the population faces. the most urgent threat comes from three very nasty class is a bugs. an intestinal bug, a resistant bacteria that includes e coli which causes pneumonia. and then there is a particularly dangerous drug-resistant form of gonorrhea out there as well. the centers for disease control have been issuing warnings for more than a decade about the sliming emergency. according to our doctor, more front-line positions need to get the message. >> as doctors become more and more aware that they have less arrows in their quiver, drug companies are not making more antibiotics, so they have less tree must offer. our jobs as doctors, the more resistance there is the less effective we are. it is time. >> the centers for disease control is turning up the volume trying to get the word out and encourage drug companies to make more and new antibiotics before, as the cdc director puts it, the medicine cabinet is empty. lou: startling numbers. as we discussed, incentives, trying to encourage drug companies to produce more antibiotics, more effective responses. that is all about money. that is all about markets. >> it is all is all about markets. drug companies do not make a lot of money and antibiotics. then make them on rare drugs that they can't pass in some. and when you come out with a new antibiotic, the bugs are so quick to catch up that the antibiotic is not effective for long amount of time. here is the overall health costs. every year one alone results in a billion dollars and excess health care costs. from all 18 it's about 20 billion. when you as -- when you include the associated costs it's running north to 40 billion per year. their economic team of economic incentives. lou: as you reported, one of the deadliest diseases out there. >> you do not want to come down with that. thank-you has always. louisiana officials taking new safety measures after the founder rare and deadly brain eating and need the in the water supply of a town located southeast of norman's. it causes the deadly form of meningitis when inhaled through the nose. it has killed at least two children this summer, including a four year-old boy from st. bernard parish. as a result the parish's flushing the water system, adding chlorine. public schools are shutting down drinking fountains. the center for disease control says that in not know out get into the water supply. free cell phones for the unqualified, ineligible, the so-called obama cell phone controversy. following up the original story of corruption and government waste with more of it. next. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. [ engine revs, tires squeal ] [ male announcer ] since we began, mercedes-benz has pioneered many breakthroughs. ♪ breakthroughs in design... breakthroughs in safety... in engineering... and technology. and now our latest creation breaks one more barrier. introducing the cla. starting at $29,900. ♪ help t gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, whe experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. ♪ lou: two new polls delivering bad news for the white house with only two weeks to go before obamacare insurance exchanges open for enrollment. according to the latest nbc news "wall street journal" survey 44 percent of americans say obamacare is a bad idea. only 31 percent say it is a good idea. it gets worse for the administration. "usa today" piu research poll finds 52 percent of americans disapprove of the health care law. that is the highest level of opposition since the health care law was signed more than three years ago. a federal program that subsidizes low-income americans is under fire again after reports of rampant fraud and abuse. my next guest detail their experience of tanning is so-called obama found through the lifeline program and national review article last month in tattled me and my obama phone. back tonight with more on the rampant use and abuse of this huge federal program. economist for the national review. this is an outrage. it continues seemingly unabated despite your terrific reporting. >> it is crazy. i spoke with representatives. he was changed to five trains to forge signatures, check boxes on behalf of applicants certifying that they had not committed perjury and had told the truth and did not even tell them is doing it. on top of that he get the national investigative team finding of that 50 out of 51 people they interviewed his name was on the application said that there signature had been forged and applications tracing back to blite buildings. lou: the lifeline program is in itself in trouble. and it is a federal program that makes it sound as if it is a constitutional right to communication, therefore the federal government and taxpayers will pay for it. does not harley follow the logic that i was taught. >> that does not sit right with me. since even worse 41 percent of the people surveyed were participating in lifeline programs have not proven eligibility. lou: a relatively small government program. subject to an investigation, million dollar fine. that impinge on the profit margin not much. the wireless benefits to the stifling plan. it's owned by who? >> the mexican billionaire. i think you see this starting out as welfare for the poor. what it has turned into, it's plain and simple. lou: almost a half a billion dollars. we don't have the numbers for 2012. >> that is a huge sum. i think when you got here is a program is entirely flawed. that is the government program. and where do we go from here. surely they probably are seeking out some sort of program of the rhone to move these phones around. >> i think in this instance a month ago it was assurance. i would like to see this program eliminated. a lot of cheap options. but it's hard to get rid of the federal program. i think a good first step would be to remove bad actors that have repeat offenses. lou: thank you for being with us. great job reporting. delighted to see you again. check out our website. the latest on today's larry summers inspired rally. end late relative global fizzle as well as our special section on the market meltdown five years later. no relief in sight in colorado. rescuers continued their search for thousands of missing. the latest. coming up next. stay with us. my mantra? trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your door about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsing prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased d blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser? i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise. okay. it's easy to erase any recent travel expense i want. just pick that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps, and...it's taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your walt? lou: breaking news. we want to bring you up-to-date on the latest on the suspected gunman in the u.s. navy are shooting in washington d.c. hewlett-packard has confirmed the suspected gunman erin alexis was a subcontractor working on a contract to refresh equipment used on the navy and marine corps internet network. still no official word on the motive, but a close friend of alexis is telling reporters that the alleged gunman was angry after a claimed he did not been paid for government contracts jobs completed 34 months earlier senior defense officials tell fox that he had a history of misconduct, as they put it. tell people were killed in building 197. more than a dozen others wounded alexis was killed during a running gun battle with law enforcement officers. colorado officials raised the death toll from the state's flooding the seven as search and rescue teams continue their efforts to locate more than 600 missing people. dry conditions are helping rescuers, but officials say there is still potential flash flooding in and around the saturated foothills. a week of torrential downpours along the eastern slopes of the caller rockies has absolutely devastated the state. 19,000 homes destroyed damaged. the flood water covering more than 2,000 square miles across 15 counties. that is an area just about twice the size ryland. engineering teams in italy say they successfully wrestled the hall of a ship from reefer it capsized in january killing 32 people. that progress leaving officials cautiously optimistic that they can pull the 950 ft. long cruise ship up bright and eventually tow it away in what has been an unprecedented solid operation. and i said in january of 2012 there essentially trying to make history because ownership of this size has ever been raided or what is known in nautical speak as part buckled. a series of 11 towers with hydraulic mechanisms controlling 450-pound cables under the ship are slowly trying to rotate the vessel and put it on six specially built platforms that have been drilled into the seabed. if they can get the ship up right and we should know within the next 24 hours, seven teams will spend months stabilizing and preparing it to be refloated with giant buoyancy tanks. the cost estimate right now is $800 million. the most expensive maritime recovery in history. new congressional report blasting the condition that investigators of last year's terrorist attack in the guise the same the accountability review board let senior state department officials off the look and glossed over policy decisions that led to substandard security as they put it at the u.s. compound in libya republicans on the house oversight committee alleged that the investigation was incomprehensive, not their role, and may have been damaged by conflicts of interest. the report also climbs the decision to place for state department officials on paid administrative leave and then reinstate them was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a tragic. the two men who led the a are b. review, former admiral mike mullen and ambassador thomas pickering will testify before the house oversight committee this thursday. forbes releasing its list of the 400 richest people in this country. microsoft co-founder bill gates not only the richest american with a network of $72 billion, also the richest in the world reclaiming the title from mexico's carlos slim. warren buffett maintains second place with 58 a half billion dollars. the head of berkshire hathaway is also last year's biggest earner adding 12 and a half million dollars to his fortune. coracle co-founder of larry ellison did not do badly either rounding out the top three at $41 billion. up next, american students being eclipsed by their peers all around the world. fax that could end up in danger in our nation's prosperity, so says the author of a new book. he joins us here next. >> thirty years of your david stockwell was ronald reagan's financial backing. now he is saying watch out for all this money printing. here comes another crash. 9:20 a.m. eastern. this man is about to be the millionth customer. would you mind if i go ahead of you? instead we had someone go ahead of him and win fiy thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer. nobody likes to miss out. that's why ally treats all their customers the same. whether you're the first or the millionth. if your bank doesn't think you're special anymore, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally. ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. ♪ lou: this may not come as a surprise, but students in this country are actually getting out educated by our students abroad. according to the organization for economic cooperation and development, only 32 percent of our students are proficient in math, 31 percent in english. statistics that have -- if left unchanged could cost our economy trillions. joining me now, senior fellow at the hoover institution, co-author of a brand new book endangering prosperity, a global view of the american school. great to have you with this. >> thank you for having me. lou: deeply troubling numbers that you bring to was and the implications not fixing this huge problem and education. let's start with those with a college degree can expect to earn more than 60 percent of the course of their lifetime and those with a high-school diploma what does that cost? what is the best measure of the impact of our economy? >> if students stop killing of a round -- it is a big impact, productivity. college education, our best students are the ones that are going to invent new things, the ones they're going to let me to the growth that we have observed. lou: what do you say to those who say so long as we continue to bring in as the and so successfully over decades in this country emigrants to maile educated and talented. an offset to the failures of public education in particular in this country. what do you say to that? >> caylee a second-best solution. if we're not educating our own people we see that we have to bring in people to keep that engine going. that's why we should be doing with our own students, local schools are not producing at the rate that of the people are and at the levels that they are. lou: the word productivity is not even was reared. no one talks about efficiency. no one talks about quality. no one talks about satisfying the customer. why is that in your judgment? >> a strange industry because it has been allowed to grow off on its own and not be responsive so that people in education say how could we possibly put in different incentives and education? we cannot do that. 80 percent of the country operates entirely on a set of incentives to perform well. lou: if we could put up a chart. you said that if we reach canada's level, just take a look at this. if we reach canada's level on the program of international student assessment we would see an average 20% increase in income for every worker for every year for the next 20 years . $77 trillion value. that sounds like a solution. why in the world would barack obama, the speaker of the house, john mccain embrace this and say let's get to it. why would they not? >> the problem is that it takes awhile. the kids have to get educated and go into the labour market. they're going to be out of office. lou: you're giving me every reason to cheer. >> they become fixated on today. we rightfully spend a lot of time worrying about the recession from 2008. it is just dwarfed by what would happen to the economy if we could, in fact, improve our school. lou: improving your school. al is it that this country, the to the millions of young people drop out of high school. we are struggling enough mattocks, natural sciences, engineering. it is mind-boggling to think that these standards in education no longer are even relevant to the vast majority of students in our high schools in particular. >> well, our high schools have not been producing. i think it is also the problem comes from the earlier problems. we are not getting children ready. frightening numbers if you look at the details. the number of our students that did not know fractions at all. could not subtract to fractions. that is the heart of any algebra advanced. lou: we are looking at numbers year. seventeenth ranking worldwide. at least those participating in the program. what happened -- we were being rocked today by one of the -- so much for american exceptional as an. and when you look at a number like that, it makes you ask what will happen to it. the answer is not always that could. great to have you with us. we recommend it highly. thank you for being with us. good night from new york. nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. no two people have the same financial goals. pnc investments works with you to understand yours and helps plan for your retirement. talk to a pnc ininvestments financial advisor today. ♪ ♪ neil: a shooting at the washington naval yard which proves terror fears are very much alive and well. that is the thing about anniversaries, they remind us of what was and sometimes was stubbornly still is. a reminder for another anniversary that many people assumed cannot happen again. to not let these markets for you. it can. history has an uncanny way of repeating itself no matter how much the government tries to make sure that it does not. welcome. i'm neil cavuto. five years after the blast where is the boom? while the government has done everything that he say

Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20140116

>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie quotes -- this is "charlie rose." >> the day after i became secretary of defense in december 2006, i flew to iraq and visited our troops there. -- i was struck by the fact that all of them were the very same age as the students i had left behind. except these 18 to 25-year-olds were wearing full body armor, carrying assault rifles, and living in peril, putting their lives on the line to protect all .f us, all of you >> robert gates is here. he served as secretary of defense for two presidents, george w. bush and barack obama. he spent 26 years at the cia and the national city council. this week, he made international headlines with the lease of his new book. "duty am a. memoirs of a secretary at war" it gives a behind the scenes look at the white house and the pentagon under both presidents. some say it is one of the most candid accounts of washington ever written. i am pleased to have bob gates back at this table. so please explain your next to me. [laughter] neck to me. [laughter] is that myell people wife and i were sitting at the table and that happened to mention casually that i was thinking about going back to government. the thing i knew, i went up in the er with a broken neck. [laughter] and she said i don't know what happened. seriousness, pure clumsiness. i tripped on a rug in our house on new year's day. just crashed into a wall. i have to wear this apparatus for a total of 12 weeks. but there is no pain and no impairment. well, we'll see if there is any impairment. at least no physical impairment. [laughter] the rest remains to be seen. >> when president obama asked you to stay to be his secretary of defense, he said what? you promised him a year, right? >> when we had a clandestine meeting, at the end of our conversation, i said, well, why don't we think about in terms of a year and say that. he said, it's not say anything that we will think in those terms. at my farewell ceremony, i talked about the president asking me to stay on and on and on. [laughter] >> why did you decide that this was the time to leave, the moment you did leave? >> when i left, i had been the secretary of defense for four years. we had been a war every single day into places. job longerin the than for my sisters. -- i had been on the job longer than four of my predecessors. trying to help salvage two wars, which at the beginning of 2007 were not going well, i ended up at war with congress and at war with my own building. and at times with the white house and other agencies. so it was kind of a constant gett for civil day to things done, whether it was cutting wasteful programs in the budget, whether it was prolonging the surgeon iraq, whether it was getting the right equal to the troops. everything was a fight with somebody or another. >> and you are exhausted. >> i was just spent. >> there is also the emotional weight. >> this is something i write about. , had got to the point where every time that i talked to the true or even when i start talking about the troops, i would start to choke up. 2008, i begannd telling the troops, both in iraq and afghanistan, but also in service academies and elsewhere that i had come to feel a personal responsibility for each of them as though they were on my own sons and daughters. point towardthe the beginning of 2011 when i began to realize that my determination to protect them against additional wars was inbably clouding my judgment terms of hardheaded national security. >> you have an example of that in which you are more worried about them and protecting them then maybe making the right decision about national security? factorink it was a real in my opposition to our intervention in libya. at one point in the situation room, i said to people, can i just finished the two wars we are already in before you all go looking for another one? there is a scene in the movie whereburg, at the end generally and general long stream are sitting around -- general long street is sitting around the camp fire. long street is beloved by his troops and lee admonishes him. mustn't love the army so much that you're not prepared to sacrifice them. i thought of putting that in the book. but because it was fiction i decided not to. that line ran through my mind fairly regularly. >> was made this deep connection to the troops? >> i think it got started by the fact that i came to the job from being president of a big university. so every day for four and a half years that i had been president of a endemol, every day -- a&m,dent of a every day going around with students who are in t-shirts and backpacks and flip-flops going around about their day. overnight, i saw kids exactly the same age wearing full body armor am i carrying assault rifles, putting their lives at risk, living in wretched conditions. and it had a huge impact on me. these kids, the same aged kids were putting their dreams on hold and putting their lives at risk to protect the dreams of all those kids back home as well as the rest of us. that decided early on signing condolence letters was not enough. i started handwriting parts of the letters. then i felt, as you are suggested, i didn't want these kids to ever become statistics for me. i wanted to know about them. so i asked that the packages that brought the materials to me include their hometown newspaper stories and interviews with their parents and their coaches and their brothers and sisters or their wives and their pastors and so on, kids who love to fish and hunt or kids who were aimless and found a calling in the military or kids who were really good students and came from well-to-do families and decided this was something they needed to do for the country. it was just the full range. the book is dedicated to the men and women of the united states armed forces. and i wrote it for them and for their families and for the america that sent them. written fora book the belt way. for washington, d c. i wanted them to see the passion with which these issues were debated, the way presidents as well as i and others wrestled with these questions of life and death and success and failure and to humanize this in the washington world in a way that i or't think the news media historians perhaps captured it. >> i will ask you some questions that you have been asked before. why now? some believe that you shouldn't write about a sitting president if you have been given a position of high command and influence. suggested, i think that the issues that i described in issues.k are ongoing decisions relevant to made tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. >> whether it is to attack a syrian militarily, whether it is to attack iran's nuclear program if the negotiations don't work out, how to deal with china, had to do with russia, had to deal with close allies like israel and saudi arabia. what should the shape of the defense budget look like? what kind of military capabilities do we need when we're making decisions to deploy military forces? what do we know about the other side? what do we know about what we're getting into? and those issues are being debated today and they are questions of war and peace. they are questions about our national security going forward. another question is what is the impact of a polarized and paralyzed congress in the ability to conduct a coherent national security or foreign- policy? so i believe these issues are relevant to today. and quite frankly, when it comes to reporting on conversations with the president, i think when people actually read the book, they will see that most of the conversations that i write about actually portray those presidents in a positive light, in the sense that they are asking tough questions. they are pushing back. ity are not being spoonfed -- spoonfed information, but are being -- but are wrestling in a good way with very tough problems. >> this book is about quarries, getting in war, getting out war, the risk of launching a military operation and all of that. so what have you learned about war? relevant to the choices facing the secretary of defense, the president of the united states, the secretary of state, the chairman of the joint chiefs? is that wethe first almost always make wrong assumptions. first assumption we almost always get wrong is that it will be short, as i suggested earlier, that we will get this job done. you go back to world war i. this will be short. we will be done by the end of summer and it's all over. >> i think that is what secretary rumsfeld and the general thought about iraq. afghanistan and iraq. they became long and grinding wars. >> so the mistake is? >> first of all, being very careful about when you deploy military force. of having a better idea consequences, trying to examine -- if we do this, then what happens next? that's why i opposed the use of force in serious. imposing -- in syria. imposing a no-fly zone or humanitarian zone in syria means attacking syrian air defenses. that is an act of war. what are the consequences of us attacking serious? -- attacking syria? what are the second and third order consequences? i think we don't think about those things as much as we should. i make the point in the book and it actually is -- i thought it would be one of the more controversial things in the book and, maybe after people read it, it will be, but i make the point in the book that i believe presidents in recent decades have been too quick to pull a gun to solve a problem. and using military force as a first choice rather than the last resort. >> do you think president obama agrees with you on that? >> you know, we never discussed it quite in those terms, but i suspect that he probably does. >> that is amazing to me. and i'll are conversations, you never discussed the idea that this country may be too quick to use the military option. >> i did talk to him about that. in fact, in the context of the libya's question, i made that point. >> and syria? syria exploded after i left office. >> this book's reaction, you said it was not written for the beltway, but that is where the reaction has come. what did you say about biden? what did you say about former secretary of state clinton? i went and you say about the president and are you trashing the president? what do you make of the criticism of you? >> as i said before, i think the narrative of the book was hijacked in the early reporting. most people had not read the book. the book doesn't even come out until tomorrow. >> but there are copies out there for review. after -- most of the press got them after the initial couple of stories. >> so they were writing about what the rednecks irks. >> they were writing about what they read in other newspapers. and i think there was this narrative put out there that this is an anti-obama book, that this is a book that takes issue with a strategy and everything in afghanistan and it is completely wrong. book ivery clear in the supported every single one of the president's decisions on afghanistan, from the day he took office until the day i left office. what isher than that, it about what has been said in the year the reaction that you find exactly wrong? >> hi think that the reoccupation -- the problem is that it is not exactly wrong in that they do have quotes in the book that are accurate quotes from the book, but they are out of context and so for example, let me give you just one example can be a lot of people -- one example. a lot of people are making much of the fact when i have a conversation with the president about iran and the president is saying i am not making a decisions and he looks around the room and there is a pretty limited number of people in the room. and he said for those of you writing your memoirs, let the record show i am not making any decisions. and i say how offended i was by that. but what is missing is a context. we were talking about specific military options against iran and what offended me was the notion that he thought anybody would write about specific military options dealing with that potential adversary of the united states. subjecthat very narrow to which i was referring. takenre are these things out of context. i will give you another example. quoted item about secretary clinton talking about her opposition to the surge being political, i made clear in it book that, first of all, got my attention because i had been on the other side of that issue in the spring of 2007, defending the surge. so i was surprised that it was said in front of me. that heother was grabbed my attention because it was such an anomaly. in all the time that we work -- when, i never once she was secretary of state -- i never once heard her bring domestic politics into the conflict -- into the conversation of a discussion of an issue. it was always what is the national interest here? >> it seems to me that lots of decisions like that are made with a clinical context if they are politicians. >> i think the issue is -- the thing that caught my attention was that she made that statement in front of me. >> oh. and i cite another example, particularly the first months, mike mullen and i would sit in the situation room and there would be this unadulterated bush bashing, the miserable state of the world that he left the hind din. the president, the vice president, the secretary of state of state, the national security advisor and so on. and what a miserable state of the world bush and his team left us in. >> and you are on the team. >> and mike mullen and i were looking at each other and saying, what, are we invisible? do they not see that we were integral parts of that team? so i think it was in that vein that hillary's statement grabbed my attention. it was very much an aside in the context of her strong support for going for the afghan surge. >> there seems to be some misunderstanding about this. i want to figure out exactly what you saw and heard and what you have written. it is about the president and afghanistan and the man that you met, when he asked you to be secretary of defense, you have described almost as perfect pitch with respect to the military and the use of the military. wrecked? -- correct? >> correct. but you believe that he supported the surge in afghanistan and the addition of troops because he believed it was the right decision to make after an agonizing process. >> virtually all of his political advisors and others in the white house, including the vice president were very much against the decision that he made. he made a decision he believed was in the national interest despite the advice of his political advisers and everybody else here in >> the president began to feel that he was being boxed in, that there was an effort by the military to put him in a place where his options were restrict it. did he believe that first? >> let me dry distinction. first of all, when the president made his decision to intervene in libya, he told me that it was a really close call, that it was a really tough decision because there were just almost all downsides as far as he was concerned. but he was persuaded by secretary clinton and others that we knew to do this with and for our allies. inn he made his decision november 20 -- november 2009 for the afghan surge, he did not express such reservations to me. i believe the president, when he made those decisions, believed that strategy would work. along, through 2010, significant elements of that strategy clearly were not working because that strategy included getting pakistan to stop its hedging and help to the taliban. it included trying to get the afghan government to be less corrupt and more competent. and as the civilian side of the was not producing, i think it said his concerns and i talk about that in the book. >> right. >> the irony -- and i write part this -- and the one of the strategy that was working reasonably well, although slower than anticipated by the military, was the military side. i supported the president's decisions in the truth is, despite what i have written, the president has continued to stick with the strategy laid out in november 2009 and then reaffirmed in december 2010 to this day in terms of full withdrawal by december 2014. .> which you support >> which i support. and i think that negotiating the follow-on agreement with the afghans is the right thing. leaving a residual forces executive right thing. my concern with the president on into twoan cell buckets. suspicion of his the motives of some of his senior military leaders. and so didbelieved everybody else in the white house that the military leadership was trying to box him to make ace him significant additional commitment of troops in afghanistan. and there was cause for him to be suspicious. >> a reason to be suspicious. >> yes. in september 2000 nine, admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs, was up for reconfirmation. and in his confirmation hearings , he strong supported a significant addition of troops in afghanistan. later, general mcchrystal, the commander in afghanistan, his assessment of where we stood in afghanistan leaped. basically saying that, if there wasn't a significant increase in troops, there would be mission failure. >> do you believe that general mcchrystal leaked that memo? >> i do believe -- first of all, i don't know. i don't believe general mcchrystal leaked it. >> but someone with his interest -- >> may have. >> and the president thought he came from the military. >> obsolete. and frankly at this point, the odds probably favor that. and then, just a week after that, general mcchrystal gives a speech in london. and in the q and a, the question-and-answer period afterward, he answers in a way that basically dismisses out of hand the option the vice president had been putting forward in our internal councils. >> which is a kind of war terrorism. >>) of course, that late. so you have in the space of about two and half weeks three different -- oh and one other thing is general betray trees gives a new view to a columnist who had been a former george w. bush speechwriter in which he talks about the need for more troops. so you take all these four things together and there was, as i write in the book, legitimate suspicion in the white house that this was an to forceted campaign the president's hand. i didn't believe it then. i don't believe it now. >> that there was an orchestrated campaign. >> correct, that there was an orchestrated campaign to force the president's hand. what's but the president had a legitimate reason to believe there was. why can easily understand those in the white house come including the president, believed that the military was trying to do this and that it was an orchestrated plan. and i tried to dissuade the president of that, but i was not successful. so that was one area where i was concerned, the suspicion of the president. i understood the origins of it and, as i write, it actually began as early as february-march 2009 when he made the first troop increase and the vice president felt that the president was getting the bum's rush by the military. the second was the president passion inlic calling for success in afghanistan. and i put it more in the framework of the troops. if you ask young men and women to go out and risk their lives, you need to be out front, it seems to me, as commander-in- chief in telling them why their cause is noble, why their cause sacrificed why their is worthwhile. in the fall of 2009, i told the president don't pick a middle option. either agree to a significant troop increase or make a dramatic decision in the other direction, meaning a radically reduced -- don't do it halfway. and the president was committed. the president made tough decisions. and i admire him for that and i supported all of that. that -- i mean, our troops are not -- they are very smart. that he did saying not make enough speeches to let the men and women on the ground know he supported them. >> i am faulting him for not going out and defending a war and a mission that he was sending young men and women out to accomplish. and they need to hear that from their commander-in-chief. >> said he was supporting them but not saying, look, this is what we need to accomplish. >> this notion that i support the troops but not their mission -- >> he was not saying i don't support the mission. >> in the absence, as i write in the book, i don't have -- i told rahm emanuel, i don't have any problem with his speeches and talking about exit strategies and how we get out of afghanistan. >>) because he campaigned on that idea and you would like that president to have done it because you, too, were tired of war and wanted to see an extraction from iraq and afghanistan. but i told him the manual that he needs to take ownership of this war. >> after afghanistan, people figure that he did on the war. let me just ask this. so he began in private conversations with you to express some of his concerns. he worried about how well it was going, was the strategy working in that kind of thing. don't all presidents do that in private counsel with people that they trust and who have important understanding of the nature of the war? didn't lyndon johnson do that about vietnam? >> sure. >> both generals said this may not work. eisenhower's famous speech about d-day said, you know, if this troops -- i take responsibility. >> and i write about the fact that george w. bush had exactly the same reservations about his strategy in iraq. 2006, hee end of essentially changed his whole team. >> what's wrong with having reservations and skepticism and expressing with privately to your secretary of defense? >> absolutely nothing wrong. >> unless he writes about it that the president didn't believe in the mission. >> in the absence of the president speaking publicly in support of the mission, that is the concern i had and it goes back to the beginning of the conversation about the troops. and what was on my mind is those kids need to hear from the guy them, why what they are doing is valuable and we are not in this for a time. we want you to be successful. >> and we -- and if we are asking you to sacrifice your life, we promise you it is because it's for a cause we believe in and one that is winnable. >> that is why never said anything about this while i was still office. >> we still have men and women in afghanistan. >> my point is they know the score. they know what they have not heard. and frankly, i think my book doesn't inform them of anything they don't already sense, don't already know. continues that, as we , thatfort in afghanistan the book will contribute to may be people saying getting this endgame right in afghanistan is important. >> just a point about today, we look at a terrible situation in iraq. do you believe that, if in fact we left 10,000 troops there, this would not be happening? >> i think there are two reasons why iraq is facing the problems that it is. prime minister malki -- first of all, we handed over a very stable, pretty secure iraqis.2009-2010 to the in a creaky but reasonably working democracy in a middle east context. so we basically handed the situation to the iraqi government on a silver platter. one of the things that has created the problems is that prime mr. malki over the last done has essentially almost everything he could to antagonize the sunnis in iraq. he has tried to arrest a sunni vice president. he has arrested other sunni officials. it has not invested anything in an bar problem that's an bar province to give them a stake in the government. he has not invested anything to give them ace stake in the government. that the wake up call came before falluja because he was here asking the present for help. >> the second is the serious and civil war -- the second is the there i thinkar that one of the contributions size was secondary in my point of view, but it was the presence of a david the trays, a lloyd austin who, in partnership with the ambassadors were able to bring the factions together in iraq, bring them together to dinner and make them talk to , pressure them to engage and solve their problems, whether it was the shia and the kurds or the shia and the news and so on. -- because we had had a presence, we had leverage. think, hadverage, i we been able to maintain a i think we could have used that leverage over the last year or year and a half or so to try to push malki harder to be more inclusive. >> and therefore, it is essential, even though karzai being -- >> karzai. >> karzai. [laughter] difficultng therefore , unimaginably misunderstanding. >> i write in the book that karzai's probably our most challenging allied since charles de gaulle. what they both have in common is that we put both of them in place, for all practical purposes, and they were solely dependent on us. and yet each wanted to be recognized as the leader of his tople and was very sensitive ride and sovereignty and so on. and i think we haven't paid enough attention to that piece of karzai. >> there is a critical difference between de gaulle in karzai, having to do with corruption and winning a war and other things. let me just go back to the president for example. there was a meeting that you described with you, general mullen and the president. he says do they not believe in me? is it because i did not serve? what is the issue here? say is a positive thing to to the secretary of defense. do i have a problem here? am i recording that correctly? >> this is one of the reasons, charlie. i've been criticized for encoding some personal conversations. if you think of those private conversations, whatever port in the case of both presidents, i think they show the president in a febrile -- in a favorable light. they show the president pushing, disagreeing with the military, lessening the military and i completely support the president's approach that. i did a lot of that. i questioned the military a lot and push them and i fired a bunch of them. >> a bunch of the military leaders. but yeah, so pushing against these guys is exactly what the president ought to do. i think that the portrayal of these conversations shows the president's doing what president ought to do. >> you'd do object very much and you have said that the white that theyton was were, in your own words, the int aggressive into king -- talking to four-star generals, the most aggressive in centralizing power in the white sinceand micromanaging the nixon white house. totally say they have gone that will better. >> and you hated that. >> again i make clear in the believe that the white house and the national circuit -- national security adviser need to drive the policy process. the big bureaucracies, defense, state -- i have seen this through my whole career. rarely if ever, they come up with a guy diaz or controversial ideas. that has to be driven by the white house and it has happened in virtually every presidency that i served. so i never had a problem with that. is whenlem that i have they begin to become operational and when they are starting to micromanage military operations. when they interfere with the chain of command. those are the things that got under my skin. >> and they got under secretary clinton skin, too, didn't it? >> that was certainly my depression. at the you look difference between presidents, you say, number one, very different personalities. how so? >> first of all, i think president obama is very analytical. >> president bush is not? >> president was relied more on his gut, on instinct. think both were willing to revisit decisions. they both would argue that they don't. but as you point out, all presidents do that. and particularly when it involves the use of military force. president bush changed strategies. and i would say that what insident obama did was, expressing his reservations -- and again -- and i probably don't go into this enough in the book -- on how during when he 10 it was the failure of the on howtary side -- during 2010 it was a failure of the nonmilitary side that said his concerns. >> support -- suppose you were the secretary of defense and there was a war that had public support, let's say, would you rather be serving under president obama or president bush? >> that is a very tough question. i'm not sure i know the answer. >> you don't. what are the factors that would go into your decision? >> i guess my answer would be that i would be willing to serve under either one of them. >> but would one be better than the other? >> they both bring french strengths, but they both -- as i write in the book, i saw both make decisions that were contrary to their political interests but were in the national interest. there by getting my respect. >> the wisdom of going into iraq is not yet fully answered? for lack of wisdom? >> i read in the book that, for the iraq war to be viewed in a more positive light, historically, will depend on whether a decade or two or three from now, the ouster of saddam hussein and the creation of a quasi-democratic government in iraq in a multiethnic state is seen as the first crack in the façade of authoritarianism throughout the middle east that eventually and with difficulty led to a more democratic region. and we won't know that for a long time. but i also say the truth is the war will always be tainted. and i've said this publicly even when i was in office. the war will always be tainted by the fact that it was launched on what turned out to be wrong premises above that there were weapons of mass to structure. >> in iraq today represents one of the great conflicts in the middle east, sectarian war. sunni versus shia. >> the problem that we face in the middle east and one of the reasons why what i have written about war and these words in the isk has contemporary value that we are seeing major regional conflicts that have emerged in the middle east. sunni versus shia. authoritarian versus reformers. islamists. versus and then overlaid on all of that is whether artificially created states, such as libya, syria, and iraq, that contain historically adversarial ethnic groups, tribes and religions can hold together absent repression or whether centrifugal forces and historic forces will tear those countries apart. you have four very different but interconnected conflicts going on in the middle east now. it will be a big challenge for the united states going forward and frankly that is one of the reasons why i think the book has contemporary value. towhat would be your device the president at this moment about that, the choices we have? everyday i read an article about how we no longer have the kind of influence we did have. because of all the factors you just suggested. we are in a much different place and there may be "a power vacuum" and some of the powers and some of the countries that may have looked to us for leadership don't do that anymore. >> i think there is a perception in the region that we are withdrawing. >> right. >> i think that perception can be corrected, but without military force. i think a military presence is important and i would argue for keeping the naval forces that we have in the region there. for continuing and expanding the military relationships we have with a number of traditional allies in the region. i think we need to work harder at communicating with and bringing our allies in the persian gulf and jordan and elsewhere, bringing them in close so that they have a better sense of what we are thinking, what we are planning, where we are headed, where we can work together and so on. i think we can do all of those things. i think the administration -- i saw that cemetery hegel was out in the region. so i think they are -- obviously, secretary carries engagement in the palace -- secretary kerry's engagement in the palestinian issue is important. but in gauging war with their friends about what we can do with respect to serious -- to syria more aggressively and these other half lives i describe i think is important. >> what is your take on the agreement that is in the paper today, the whole notion of nuclear accord with iran. that is the lead story in both "the washington post" and "the new york times." what is your take on that record -- on that accord? did we get something out of this? >> i believe that the united states had no choice but to say yes to a negotiation. this can beome ways seen as iran coming to the table -- iran coming to the table can be seen as a validation that the strategy of economic pressure that actually began with president clinton and was significantly intensified by president bush and more so by president obama brought them to the table. the key will not be the agreement today. the key is what happens in six months. and i would argue that the six months need to be a definite deadline. there needs to be a date certain because the iranians, the persians are expert at rolling these things along and then, well, let's take another month or let's take another two or three months. so there is a real danger of these guys slow rolling us for a protracted ppt of time. period of time. there are still some positive periodhappens during the of this accord. but they do not stop or reverse the iranian nuclear program in the larger sense. that, first of all, there needs to be the said line. the u.s.in terms of congress and additional sanctions, i think the congress is wrong to pass additional sanctions now. but i think that the president ought to take it vantage of congress are being willing to impose dramatically increased sanctions the day after that six-month deadline is reached. thatat the iranians know they will lose something significant, that they will suffer even more if there is no real agreement. and then finally, i really strongly believe that there should not -- we should not reach an agreement that leaves iran as a nuclear weapons threshold state. where they could -- to a weapon fairly quickly. >> to do that, we would have to have them dismantle some of the centrifuges and other things. >> yes. >> you spent your life in the cia rising to the top position there. naturally -- and you are naturally, i would assume, suspicious. [laughter] ofthere is an old line intelligence where they smell flowers they look around for coffins. >> do you think it is possible that the iranians have finally said, look, this is not worth it. >> i'm not sure they know. i think they are playing this out to see -- i mean, you have two sides in this negotiation. you have the iranians wanting to change as little of their nuclear program as they can get away with and as much relief from the sanctions as they can get. and the position of the united states and our colleagues in this negotiation are just the reverse. how much of a reversal can we get of the nuclear program and how little of the sanctions do we have to to live -- to lift in order to force iran to do that? >> finally, there is edward snowden who is in russia. >> under the umbrella of protection of that famous protector of human rights and civil liberties and privacy, vladimir putin. george bush said he looked into his eyes and saw a christian, i don't know what he said, and you said, when i look into his eyes, i saw a stone cold killer. would you under any circumstances support some kind of amnesty to get edward snowden back here? >> absolutely not. >> you are living in seattle, washington. you have another book after this one. what would you change now that this book is out there? did you go to far? are the things that you should have said you didn't? >> i don't think so, charlie. me make two let additional points. some folks accuse me of the proper say, saying things in this book that i didn't say when i was in office. believe me, there are no complaints in that book that i did not raise with the president or with people working for the president in the white house. the white house chiefs of staff and so on. although i knowledge that i did not raise the micromanagement issue with the president, i certainly did with the chiefs of staff and national security advisers. so there is no issue in that book of which i did not express my views very forcefully what i was still in his. the other is, -- still in office. the other is, in terms of recording of conversations, more importantly the idea of whether i should publish this now, i would just ask interviewers and others to be sure and ask the same question of secretary diner, secretary pineda, and secretary pineda -- and secretary clinton when their books come out before president obama leaves office. >> there's finally this. for half years to write this. how long did it take you to write this? >> about 20 months. desk, in thisa room here -- this is today's "washington post." i assume maybe that is where you fell. i don't know. [laughter] and you have another book you will write about leadership. >> it is really more about -- it is more of a book about how you lead change in the organizations, particularly big public organizations. having done it successfully at cia, texas a&m, the defense department. book.not a leadership it is more of a step-by-step -- here's how you can actually get things done in a public environment. this is one of the themes in the book that i underscore. despite my hidden rage at the congress for seating at the is i was ablefact to cut nearly three dozen major procurement programs that i considered wasteful or unnecessary. i cut $180 billion of overhead over 10 years and get congressional support to do all of those things when most of my predecessors were lucky if they get to were three or four programs cut him and it was because of the way i work with congress. and what i say in there is a you can make this work, even in today's environment in washington. you can be successful and lead change. >> there is this. even though you made a joke about how you received your neck injury, when you venture consider going back to washington in the end, you aren't going back to washington. when you die, you have asked to have your final resting place at arlington national cemetery among the men and women. >> yes, in section 60. the two fought in afghanistan and iraq. >> correct. >> think you were coming. >> thanks, charlie. >> the book is called "duty, memoirs of a secretary at war." see you next time. >> "taking stock" for wednesday, january 15th, 2014. i am pimm fox. this hour, we'll focus on business and people that are more than meet the eye. i will be speaking with the chief executive of smithfield foods, the world's biggest producer of hogs and parts -- and pork. we will discuss the deal. also, we will talk about food safety. plus, the cheese executive of dsp joins us. it is the largest independent provider of eye care insurance coverage in the united states. a viral marketing.

Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20140116

>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> the day after i became secretary of defense in december 2006, i flew to iraq and visited our troops there. i was struck -- i was struck by the fact that all of them were the very same age as the students i had left behind. except these 18 to 25-year-olds were wearing full body armor, carrying assault rifles, and living in peril, putting their lives on the line to protect all of us, all of you. >> robert gates is here. he served as secretary of defense for two presidents, george w. bush and barack obama. he spent 26 years at the cia and the national city council. this week, he made international headlines with the lease of his new book. "duty am a. memoirs of a secretary at war" it gives a behind the scenes look at the white house and the pentagon under both presidents. some say it is one of the most candid accounts of washington ever written. i am pleased to have bob gates back at this table. so please explain your neck to me. [laughter] >> what i tell people is that my wife and i were sitting at the table and that happened to mention casually that i was thinking about going back to government. the thing i knew, i went up in the er with a broken neck. [laughter] and she said i don't know what happened. in all seriousness, pure clumsiness. i tripped on a rug in our house on new year's day. just crashed into a wall. i have to wear this apparatus for a total of 12 weeks. but there is no pain and no impairment. well, we'll see if there is any impairment. at least no physical impairment. [laughter] the rest remains to be seen. >> when president obama asked you to stay to be his secretary of defense, he said what? you promised him a year, right? >> when we had a clandestine meeting, at the end of our conversation, i said, well, why don't we think about in terms of a year and say that. he said, it's not say anything that we will think in those terms. at my farewell ceremony, i talked about the president asking me to stay on and on and on. [laughter] >> why did you decide that this was the time to leave, the moment you did leave? >> when i left, i had been the secretary of defense for four years. we had been a war every single day into places. i had been in the job longer than four of my predecessors. trying to help salvage two wars, which at the beginning of 2007 were not going well, i ended up at war with congress and at war with my own building. and at times with the white house and other agencies. so it was kind of a constant fight for civil day to get things done, whether it was cutting wasteful programs in the budget, whether it was prolonging the surge in iraq, whether it was getting the right equal to the troops. everything was a fight with somebody or another. >> and you are exhausted. >> i was just spent. >> there is also the emotional weight. >> this is something i write about. i had got to the point where, every time that i talked to the troops or even when i start talking about the troops, i would start to choke up. beginning around 2008, i began telling the troops, both in iraq and afghanistan, but also in service academies and elsewhere that i had come to feel a personal responsibility for each of them as though they were on my own sons and daughters. and i got to the point toward the beginning of 2011 when i began to realize that my determination to protect them against additional wars was probably clouding my judgment in terms of hardheaded national security. >> you have an example of that in which you are more worried about them and protecting them then maybe making the right decision about national security? >> i think it was a real factor in my opposition to our intervention in libya. at one point in the situation room, i said to people, can i just finished the two wars we are already in before you all go looking for another one? there is a scene in the movie gettysburg, at the end where general lee and general longstreet is sitting around the camp fire. longstreet is beloved by his troops and lee admonishes him. general, you mustn't love the army so much that you're not prepared to sacrifice them. i thought of putting that in the book. but because it was fiction i decided not to. that line ran through my mind fairly regularly. >> was made this deep connection to the troops? >> i think it got started by the fact that i came to the job from being president of a big university. so every day for four and a half years that i had been president of a&m, every day going around with students who are in t- shirts and backpacks and flip- flops going around about their day. overnight, i saw kids exactly the same age wearing full body armor am i carrying assault rifles, putting their lives at risk, living in wretched conditions. and it had a huge impact on me. these kids, the same aged kids were putting their dreams on hold and putting their lives at risk to protect the dreams of all those kids back home as well as the rest of us. and i decided early on that signing condolence letters was not enough. i started handwriting parts of the letters. and then i felt, as you are suggested, i didn't want these kids to ever become statistics for me. i wanted to know about them. so i asked that the packages that brought the materials to me include their hometown newspaper stories and interviews with their parents and their coaches and their brothers and sisters or their wives and their pastors and so on, kids who love to fish and hunt or kids who were aimless and found a calling in the military or kids who were really good students and came from well-to-do families and decided this was something they needed to do for the country. it was just the full range. the book is dedicated to the men and women of the united states armed forces. and i wrote it for them and for their families and for the america that sent them. this is not a book written for the beltway. for washington, d.c. i wanted them to see the passion with which these issues were debated, the way presidents as well as i and others wrestled with these questions of life and death and success and failure and to humanize this in the washington world in a way that i don't think the news media or historians perhaps captured it. >> i will ask you some questions that you have been asked before. why now? some believe that you shouldn't write about a sitting president if you have been given a position of high command and influence. >> as i suggested, i think that the issues that i described in this book are ongoing issues. >> and are relevant to decisions made tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. >> whether it is to attack a syria militarily, whether it is to attack iran's nuclear program if the negotiations don't work out, how to deal with china, had to do with russia, had to deal with close allies like israel and saudi arabia. what should the shape of the defense budget look like? what kind of military capabilities do we need when we're making decisions to deploy military forces? what do we know about the other side? what do we know about what we're getting into? and those issues are being debated today and they are questions of war and peace. they are questions about our national security going forward. another question is what is the impact of a polarized and paralyzed congress in the ability to conduct a coherent national security or foreign- policy? so i believe these issues are relevant to today. and quite frankly, when it comes to reporting on conversations with the president, i think when people actually read the book, they will see that most of the conversations that i write about actually portray those presidents in a positive light, in the sense that they are asking tough questions. they are pushing back. they are not being spoon-fed information, but are wrestling in a good way with very tough problems. ♪ >> this book is about quarries, getting in war, getting out war, the risk of launching a military operation and all of that. so what have you learned about war? that is relevant to the choices facing the secretary of defense, the president of the united states, the secretary of state, the chairman of the joint chiefs? >> i think the first is that we almost always make wrong assumptions. and the first assumption we almost always get wrong is that it will be short, as i suggested earlier, that we will get this job done. you go back to world war i. this will be short. we will be done by the end of summer and it's all over. >> i think that is what secretary rumsfeld and the general thought about iraq. >> about both afghanistan and iraq. they became long and grinding wars. >> so the mistake is? >> first of all, being very careful about when you deploy military force. and having a better idea of consequences, trying to examine if we do this, then what happens next? that's why i opposed the use of force in syria. imposing a no-fly zone or humanitarian zone in syria means attacking syrian air defenses. that is an act of war. what are the consequences of us attacking syria? what are the second and third order consequences? i think we don't think about those things as much as we should. i make the point in the book and it actually is -- i thought it would be one of the more controversial things in the book and, maybe after people read it, it will be, but i make the point in the book that i believe presidents in recent decades have been too quick to pull a gun to solve a problem. and using military force as a first choice rather than the last resort. >> do you think president obama agrees with you on that? >> you know, we never discussed it quite in those terms, but i suspect that he probably does. >> that is amazing to me. you never discussed the idea that this country may be too quick to use the military option. >> i did talk to him about that. in fact, in the context of the libya's question, i made that point. >> and syria? >> syria exploded after i left office. >> this book's reaction, you said it was not written for the beltway, but that is where the reaction has come. what did you say about biden? what did you say about former secretary of state clinton? i went and you say about the president and are you trashing the president? what do you make of the criticism of you? >> as i said before, i think the narrative of the book was hijacked in the early reporting. most people had not read the book. the book doesn't even come out until tomorrow. >> but there are copies out there for review. >> but only after -- most of the press got them after the initial couple of stories. >> so they were writing about what-- >> they were writing about what they read in other newspapers. and i think there was this narrative put out there that this is an anti-obama book, that this is a book that takes issue with a strategy and everything in afghanistan and it is completely wrong. i make very clear in the book i supported every single one of the president's decisions on afghanistan, from the day he took office until the day i left office. >> so other than that, what is it about what has been said in the year the reaction that you find exactly wrong? >> i think that the reoccupation the problem is that it is not exactly wrong in that they do have quotes in the book that are accurate quotes from the book, but they are out of context and so, for example, let me give you just one example. a lot of people are making much of the fact when i have a conversation with the president about iran and the president is saying i am not making a decisions and he looks around the room and there is a pretty limited number of people in the room. and he said for those of you writing your memoirs, let the record show i am not making any decisions. and i say how offended i was by that. but what is missing is a context. we were talking about specific military options against iran and what offended me was the notion that he thought anybody would write about specific military options dealing with that potential adversary of the united states. it was that very narrow subject to which i was referring. so there are these things taken out of context. i will give you another example. the frequently quoted item about secretary clinton talking about her opposition to the surge being political, i made clear in the book that, first of all, it got my attention because i had been on the other side of that issue in the spring of 2007, defending the surge. so i was surprised that it was said in front of me. but the other was that he grabbed my attention because it was such an anomaly. in all the time that we work together, i never once -- when she was secretary of state -- i never once heard her bring domestic politics into the conversation of a discussion of an issue. it was always what is the national interest here? >> it seems to me that lots of decisions like that are made with a clinical context if they are politicians. >> i think the thing that caught my attention was that she made that statement in front of me. >> oh. and i cite another example, particularly the first months, mike mullen and i would sit in the situation room and there would be this unadulterated bush bashing, the miserable state of the world that he left the hind din. the president, the vice president, the secretary of state of state, the national security advisor and so on. and what a miserable state of the world bush and his team left us in. >> and you are on the team. >> and mike mullen and i were looking at each other and saying, what, are we invisible? do they not see that we were integral parts of that team? so i think it was in that vein that hillary's statement grabbed my attention. it was very much an aside in the context of her strong support for going for the afghan surge. >> there seems to be some misunderstanding about this. i want to figure out exactly what you saw and heard and what you have written. it is about the president and afghanistan and the man that you met, when he asked you to be secretary of defense, you have described almost as perfect pitch with respect to the military and the use of the military. correct? >> correct. but you believe that he supported the surge in afghanistan and the addition of troops because he believed it was the right decision to make after an agonizing process. >> virtually all of his political advisors and others in the white house, including the vice president were very much against the decision that he made. he made a decision he believed was in the national interest despite the advice of his political advisers and everybody else here in >> the president began to feel that he was being boxed in, that there was an effort by the military to put him in a place where his options were restrict it. did he believe that first? >> let me draw a distinction. first of all, when the president made his decision to intervene in libya, he told me that it was a really close call, that it was a really tough decision because there were just almost all downsides as far as he was concerned. but he was persuaded by secretary clinton and others that we knew to do this with and for our allies. when he made his decision in november 2009 for the afghan surge, he did not express such reservations to me. i believe the president, when he made those decisions, believed that strategy would work. as time went along, through 2010, significant elements of that strategy clearly were not working because that strategy included getting pakistan to stop its hedging and help to the taliban. it included trying to get the afghan government to be less corrupt and more competent. and as the civilian side of the strategy was not producing, i think it said his concerns and i talk about that in the book. >> right. >> the irony -- and i write about this -- and the one part of the strategy that was working reasonably well, although slower than anticipated by the military, was the military side. i supported the president's decisions and the truth is, despite what i have written, the president has continued to stick with the strategy laid out in november 2009 and then reaffirmed in december 2010 to this day in terms of full withdrawal by december 2014. >> which you support. >> which i support. and i think that negotiating the follow-on agreement with the afghans is the right thing. leaving a residual forces executive right thing. my concern with the president on afghanistan fell into two buckets. the first was his suspicion of the motives of some of his senior military leaders. he clearly believed and so did everybody else in the white house that the military leadership was trying to box him in and force him to make a significant additional commitment of troops in afghanistan. and as i write and there was cause for him to be suspicious. >> a reason to be suspicious. >> yes. because in september 2009, admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs, was up for reconfirmation. and in his confirmation hearings, he strongly supported a significant addition of troops in afghanistan. about a week later, general mcchrystal, the commander in afghanistan, his assessment of where we stood in afghanistan leaped. basically saying that, if there wasn't a significant increase in troops, there would be mission failure. >> do you believe that general mcchrystal leaked that memo? >> i do believe -- first of all, i don't know. i don't believe general mcchrystal leaked it. >> but someone with his interest >> may have. >> and the president thought he came from the military. >> absoletely. and frankly at this point, the odds probably favor that. and then, just a week after that, general mcchrystal gives a speech in london. and in the q and a, the question-and-answer period afterward, he answers in a way that basically dismisses out of hand the option the vice president had been putting forward in our internal councils. >> which is a kind of war terrorism. >> so you have in the space of about two and half weeks three different -- oh and one other thing is general betray trees gives a new view to a columnist who had been a former george w. bush speechwriter in which he talks about the need for more troops. so you take all these four things together and there was, as i write in the book, legitimate suspicion in the white house that this was an orchestrated campaign to force the president's hand. i didn't believe it then. i don't believe it now. >> that there was an orchestrated campaign. >> correct, that there was an orchestrated campaign to force the president's hand. >> but the president had a legitimate reason to believe there was. >> i can easily understand why those in the white house come including the president, believed that the military was trying to do this and that it was an orchestrated plan. and i tried to dissuade the president of that, but i was not successful. so that was one area where i was concerned, the suspicion of the president. i understood the origins of it and, as i write, it actually began as early as february-march 2009 when he made the first troop increase and the vice president felt that the president was getting the bum's rush by the military. the second was the president lack of public passion in calling for success in afghanistan. and i put it more in the framework of the troops. if you ask young men and women to go out and risk their lives, you need to be out front, it seems to me, as commander-in- chief in telling them why their cause is noble, why their cause is just and why their sacrifice is worthwhile. in the fall of 2009, i told the president don't pick a middle option. either agree to a significant troop increase or make a dramatic decision in the other direction, meaning a radically reduced -- don't do it halfway. and the president was committed. the president made tough decisions. and i admire him for that and i supported all of that. but i think that -- i mean, our troops are not -- they are very smart. >> so you're saying that he did not make enough speeches to let the men and women on the ground know he supported them. >> i am faulting him for not going out and defending a war and a mission that he was sending young men and women out to accomplish. and they need to hear that from their commander-in-chief. >> said he was supporting them but not saying, look, this is what we need to accomplish. >> this notion that i support the troops but not their mission >> he was not saying i don't support the mission. >> in the absence, as i write in the book, i don't have -- i told rahm emanuel, i don't have any problem with his speeches and talking about exit strategies and how we get out of afghanistan. >>) because he campaigned on that idea and you would like that president to have done it because you, too, were tired of war and wanted to see an extraction from iraq and afghanistan. but i told him the manual that he needs to take ownership of this war. >> after afghanistan, people figure that he did on the war. let me just ask this. so he began in private conversations with you to express some of his concerns. he worried about how well it was going, was the strategy working and that kind of thing. don't all presidents do that in private counsel with people that they trust and who have important understanding of the nature of the war? didn't lyndon johnson do that about vietnam? >> sure. >> both generals said this may not work. eisenhower's famous speech about d-day said, you know, if this fails -- to the troops -- i take responsibility. >> and i write about the fact that george w. bush had exactly the same reservations about his strategy in iraq. and at the end of 2006, he essentially changed his whole team. >> what's wrong with having reservations and skepticism and expressing it privately to your secretary of defense? >> absolutely nothing wrong. >> unless he writes about it that the president didn't believe in the mission. >> in the absence of the president speaking publicly in support of the mission, that is the concern i had and it goes back to the beginning of the conversation about the troops. and what was on my mind is those kids need to hear from the guy who sent them, why what they are doing is valuable and we are not in this for a time. we want you to be successful. >> and we -- and if we are asking you to sacrifice your life, we promise you it is because it's for a cause we believe in and one that is winnable. >> that is why i never said anything about this while i was still office. >> we still have men and women in afghanistan. >> my point is they know the score. they know what they have not heard. and frankly, i think my book doesn't inform them of anything they don't already sense, don't already know. my hope is that, as we continue our effort in afghanistan, that the book will contribute to may be people saying getting this endgame right in afghanistan is important. >> just a point about today, we look at a terrible situation in iraq. do you believe that, if in fact we left 10,000 troops there, this would not be happening? >> i think there are two reasons why iraq is facing the problems that it is. one is that prime minister malaki -- first of all, we handed over a very stable, pretty secure iraq in 2009-2010 to the iraqis. and a creaky but reasonably working democracy in a middle east context. so we basically handed the situation to the iraqi government on a silver platter. one of the things that has created the problems is that prime minister malki over the last years has essentially done almost everything he could to antagonize the sunnis in iraq. he has tried to arrest a sunni vice president. he has arrested other sunni officials. he has not invested anything in anbar province to give them a stake in the government. >> my guess is that the wake up call came before falluja because he was here asking the present for help. >> the second is the syrian civil war. i think that one of the contributions and that size was secondary in my point of view, but it was the presence of a david the trays, a lloyd austin who, in partnership with the ambassadors were able to bring the factions together in iraq, bring them together to dinner and make them talk to each other, pressure them to engage and solve their problems, whether it was the shia and the kurds or the shia and the news and so on. and i think we had -- because we had a presence, we had leverage. and that leverage, i think, had we been able to maintain a residual force, i think we could have used that leverage over the last year or year and a half or so to try to push malki harder to be more inclusive. >> and therefore, it is essential, even though karzai being -- >> karzai. >> karzai. [laughter] and is being therefore difficult, unimaginably misunderstanding. >> i write in the book that karzai's probably our most challenging allied since charles de gaulle. what they both have in common is that we put both of them in place, for all practical purposes, and they were solely dependent on us. and yet each wanted to be recognized as the leader of his people and was very sensitive to pride and sovereignty and so on. and i think we haven't paid enough attention to that piece of karzai. >> there is a critical difference between de gaulle in karzai, having to do with corruption and winning a war and other things. let me just go back to the president for example. there was a meeting that you described with you, general mullen and the president. he says do they not believe in me? is it because i did not serve? what is the issue here? that is a positive thing to say to the secretary of defense. do i have a problem here? am i recording that correctly? >> this is one of the reasons, charlie. i've been criticized for including some personal conversations. the truth is, if you think of those private conversations, whatever port in the case of both presidents, i think they show the president in a favorable light. they show the president pushing, disagreeing with the military, lessening the military and i completely support the president's approach that. i did a lot of that. i questioned the military a lot and pushed them and i fired a bunch of them. >> a bunch of the military leaders. >> yeah, so pushing against these guys is exactly what the president ought to do. i think that the portrayal of these conversations shows the president's doing what president ought to do. >> you'd do object very much and you have said that the white house stanton was that they were, in your own words, the most aggressive in talking to four-star generals, the most aggressive in centralizing power in the white house and micromanaging since the nixon white house. >> and i would totally say they have gone that will better. >> and you hated that. >> again i make clear in the book i strongly believe that the white house and the national security adviser need to drive the policy process. the big bureaucracies, defense, state -- i have seen this through my whole career. rarely if ever, they come up with big ideas or controversial ideas. that has to be driven by the white house and it has happened in virtually every presidency that i served. so i never had a problem with that. the problem that i have is when they begin to become operational and when they are starting to micromanage military operations. when they interfere with the chain of command. those are the things that got under my skin. >> and they got under secretary clinton's skin, too, didn't it? >> that was certainly my impression. >> when you look at the difference between presidents, you say, number one, very different personalities. how so? >> first of all, i think president obama is very analytical. >> president bush is not? >> president was relied more on his gut, on instinct. i think both were willing to revisit decisions. they both would argue that they don't. but as you point out, all presidents do that. and particularly when it involves the use of military force. president bush changed strategies. and i would say that what president obama did was, in expressing his reservations -- and again -- and i probably don't go into this enough in the book -- on how during 2010 it was a failure of the nonmilitary side that fed his concerns. >> suppose you were the secretary of defense and there was a war that had public support, let's say, would you rather be serving under president obama or president bush? >> that is a very tough question. i'm not sure i know the answer. >> you don't. what are the factors that would go into your decision? >> i guess my answer would be that i would be willing to serve under either one of them. >> but would one be better than the other? >> they both bring some strengths, but they both -- as i write in the book, i saw both make decisions that were contrary to their political interests but were in the national interest. and i quote there by getting my respect. >> the wisdom of going into iraq is not yet fully answered? or lack of wisdom? >> i read in the book that, for the iraq war to be viewed in a more positive light, historically, will depend on whether a decade or two or three from now, the ouster of saddam hussein and the creation of a quasi-democratic government in iraq in a multiethnic state is seen as the first crack in the façade of authoritarianism throughout the middle east that eventually and with difficulty led to a more democratic region. and we won't know that for a long time. but i also say the truth is the war will always be tainted. and i've said this publicly even when i was in office. the war will always be tainted by the fact that it was launched on what turned out to be wrong premises above that there were weapons of mass to structure. >> in iraq today represents one of the great conflicts in the middle east, sectarian war. sunni versus shia. >> the problem that we face in the middle east and one of the reasons why what i have written about war and these words in the book has contemporary value is that we are seeing major regional conflicts that have emerged in the middle east. sunni versus shia. authoritarian versus reformers. secularists versus islamists. and then overlaid on all of that is whether artificially created states, such as libya, syria, and iraq, that contain historically adversarial ethnic groups, tribes and religions can hold together absent repression or whether centrifugal forces and historic forces will tear those countries apart. you have four very different but interconnected conflicts going on in the middle east now. it will be a big challenge for the united states going forward and frankly that is one of the reasons why i think the book has contemporary value. >> what would be your device to the president at this moment about that, the choices we have? everyday i read an article about how we no longer have the kind of influence we did have. because of all the factors you just suggested. we are in a much different place and there may be "a power vacuum" and some of the powers and some of the countries that may have looked to us for leadership don't do that anymore. >> i think there is a perception in the region that we are withdrawing. >> right. >> i think that perception can be corrected, but without military force. i think a military presence is important and i would argue for keeping the naval forces that we have in the region there. i would argue for continuing and expanding the military relationships we have with a number of traditional allies in the region. i think we need to work harder at communicating with and bringing our allies in the persian gulf and jordan and elsewhere, bringing them in close so that they have a better sense of what we are thinking, what we are planning, where we are headed, where we can work together and so on. i think we can do all of those things. i think the administration -- i saw that secretary hegel was out in the region. so i think they are -- obviously, secretary kerry's engagement in the palestinian issue is important. but in gauging war with their friends about what we can do with respect to syria more aggressively and these other conflicts i describe i think is important. >> what is your take on the agreement that is in the paper today, the whole notion of nuclear accord with iran. that is the lead story in both "the washington post" and "the new york times." what is your take on that accord? did we get something out of this? >> i believe that the united states had no choice but to say yes to a negotiation. i think in some ways this can be seen as iran coming to the table iran coming to the table can be seen as a validation that the strategy of economic pressure that actually began with president clinton and was significantly intensified by president bush and more so by president obama brought them to the table. the key will not be the agreement today. the key is what happens in six months. and i would argue that the six months need to be a definite deadline. there needs to be a date certain because the iranians, the persians are expert at rolling these things along and then, well, let's take another month or let's take another two or three months. so there is a real danger of these guys slow rolling us for a protracted period of time. there are still some positive things happens during the period of this accord. but they do not stop or reverse the iranian nuclear program in the larger sense. and i think that, first of all, there needs to be the said line. frankly, in terms of the u.s. congress and additional sanctions, i think the congress is wrong to pass additional sanctions now. but i think that the president ought to take it vantage of congress are being willing to impose dramatically increased sanctions the day after that six-month deadline is reached. so that the iranians know that they will lose something significant, that they will suffer even more if there is no real agreement. and then finally, i really strongly believe that there should not -- we should not reach an agreement that leaves iran as a nuclear weapons threshold state. where they could move to a weapon fairly quickly. >> to do that, we would have to have them dismantle some of the centrifuges and other things. >> yes. >> you spent your life in the cia rising to the top position there. and you are naturally, i would assume, suspicious. [laughter] >> there is an old line of intelligence where they smell flowers they look around for coffins. >> do you think it is possible that the iranians have finally said, look, this is not worth it. >> i'm not sure they know. i think they are playing this out to see -- i mean, you have two sides in this negotiation. you have the iranians wanting to change as little of their nuclear program as they can get away with and as much relief from the sanctions as they can get. and the position of the united states and our colleagues in this negotiation are just the reverse. how much of a reversal can we get of the nuclear program and how little of the sanctions do we have to to lift in order to force iran to do that? >> finally, there is edward snowden who is in russia. >> under the umbrella of protection of that famous protector of human rights and civil liberties and privacy, vladimir putin. >> when george bush said he looked into his eyes and saw a christian, i don't know what he said, and you said, when i look into his eyes, i saw a stone cold killer. would you under any circumstances support some kind of amnesty to get edward snowden back here? >> absolutely not. >> you are living in seattle, washington. you have another book after this one. what would you change now that this book is out there? did you go too far? are the things that you should have said you didn't? >> i don't think so, charlie. for those -- let me make two additional points. some folks accuse me of the proper say, saying things in this book that i didn't say when i was in office. believe me, there are no complaints in that book that i did not raise with the president or with people working for the president in the white house. the white house chiefs of staff and so on. although i knowledge that i did not raise the micromanagement issue with the president, i certainly did with the chiefs of staff and national security advisers. so there is no issue in that book of which i did not express my views very forcefully what i was still in office. the other is, in terms of recording of conversations, more importantly the idea of whether i should publish this now, i would just ask interviewers and others to be sure and ask the same question of secretary diner, secretary panetta and secretary clinton when their books come out before president obama leaves office. >> there's finally this. four and a half years to write this. how long did it take you to write this? >> about 20 months. >> you sat at a desk, in this room here -- this is today's "washington post." i assume maybe that is where you fell. i don't know. [laughter] and you have another book you will write about leadership. >> it is really more about -- it is more of a book about how you lead change in the organizations, particularly big public organizations. having done it successfully at cia, texas a&m, the defense department. it is not a leadership book. it is more of a step-by-step -- here's how you can actually get things done in a public environment. this is one of the themes in the book that i underscore. despite my hidden rage at the congress for seating at the congress, the fact is i was able to cut nearly three dozen major procurement programs that i considered wasteful or unnecessary. i cut $180 billion of overhead over 10 years and get congressional support to do all of those things when most of my predecessors were lucky if they get to were three or four programs cut, and it was because of the way i work with congress. and what i say in there is a you can make this work, even in today's environment in washington. you can be successful and lead change. >> there is this. even though you made a joke about how you received your neck injury, when you venture consider going back to washington in the end, you aren't going back to washington. when you die, you have asked to have your final resting place at arlington national cemetery among the men and women. >> yes, in section 60. the two fought in afghanistan and iraq. >> correct. >> think you were coming. >> thanks, charlie. >> the book is called "duty, memoirs of a secretary at war." see you next time. ♪ >> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. after barely more than a year on the job, yahoo's coo is leaving. he joined in the fall of 2012, but he is out according to an sec filing that just came in. this is someone that marissa mayer brought in. she was focused on building the le

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20131007

kind of crisis and problems that the c.b.o. projects, that simpson-bowles projects that long. but the president obviously has other priorities, but toiled remind him what his own former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, said, when he was asked about the nation's biggest threat to our national security. he said it was the national de debt. the president himself has echoed those comments but the president's still sitting on the sidelines and still takes the untenable position that he's unwilling to negotiate. at a time when the country needs genuine leadership, he's nowhere to be found. natural changes, we're not going to get any closer to where we need to be sooner rather than later and that's at a true bipartisan compromise. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, before you yield the chair, i just wanted to say that it's almost like deja vu all over again. the great senator from maine was sitting in the chair only a couple of days ago when this senator had the chance to make comments and here we are again. i want to say the senator from texas as he is leaving the chamber that i think is he -- i think he is a good senator and he believes strongly in what he's saying. but if there's a will, there's a way. reasonable people can come together and work through to a reasonable conclusion. and i was going to say with the senator from texas here on the floor that he had his chance to express his opinion. and, indeed, he did with his vote when he passed the appropriation bill now called the continuing resolution because we haven't brought each of the appropriations bills to the floor. we accepted it at the house number. and the senior senator from texas expressed his opinion my means of his "no" vote. but the "yes" votes won and we sent it to the other body to keep the government open. and, indeed, the government is not open. and i go back to two days ago when the senator from maine was the presiding officer and here we are again talking about, you know, if we would kind of remember the golden rule, putting the old english "do unto others as you would have to do unto you," or put into modern street language, "treat others as you want to be treated." in other words, recognize that the other fella has a point of view and you have to respect his point of view. and even though his point of view may be different from yours, the genius of american democracy is hammering out those differences and building consensus in a civil way and achieving a workable solution. but what we have here is brink brinksmanship. we hammer it out. we pass an appropriations continuing resolution, we send it down to the house of representatives, and they don't get it up for a vote. because there is, what's operative, we're only going to pass this with republican votes. so what does that do? that takes an outsized minority of the republican caucus being the tail that is wagging the republican dog in the house of representatives. because if you only pass it with republican votes instead of the will of the whole house, then, in fact, you're going to have what we have now, a small, out of the mainstream political philosophy extremist group dictating what they want and only what they want. it's their way or no way. that's not treating others as you want to be treated. that's an attitude of saying, i know better than you, and my way is going to be the only way. but that's not how we govern this country and that's not how we honor and respect other people's point of view that may be difference than ours. i didn't want to hold up the senator from maine but i just wanted to follow up to the conversation that i had through the chair two days ago. and before the senator leaves, i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have at approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: now, mr. president of course, you know, all of th this -- now, mr. president, you know, all of this high-minded, highfalutin ideas of getting together and treating each other as wement to b we want to be trd hammering out this policy, lo and behold, maybe everything i'm saying doesn't have anything to do with this by virtue of an investigative piece being -- having been done by "the new york times" over the weekend. and i just want to read the first three paragraphs of this investigative piece. it's entitled "a federal budget crisis months in the planning." and, mr. president, at the end of my remarks, i would ask consent that this be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson nelson: it's by chery stolberg and mike mcintyre. "shortly after president obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists, led by former attorney general edwin middlmeese, gathered in the capl to plot strategy. their four repeal mr. obama's health care law was going nowhere and they desperately needed a plan. out of that session held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret aim a little noticed -- quote -- "blueprint to defunding obamacare" signed by mr. meese and the leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups. it articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that has long percolated in conservative circles that republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow republicans, including their cautious leaders, into cutting off financing for the entire federal government." that's just the first three paragraphparagraphs, mr. presid. if that's true, then all these high-minded ideas of the golden rule and treating open other with respect and working out your differences, it's all out the window. and if that's true -- and it looks like it is by virtue of what we see going on down in the other end of this capitol building, where a small group of people are not going to do anything to open up the government unless they get their way to defund the affordable care act, the health care reform bill. now, i would suggest that if that's the case, then the people who are suffering should sit up and take notice of what is happening to their government. we've heard over and over examples out here. senator brown and i were just talking about the 70 -- that 97% of people that are laid off in nasa and then when do you that with all of the civilian work force of nasa, then just think what that's doing to all the contractors that work for nasa. you've heard also the statistic out here that over 70% of the intelligence community has been furloughed. you've heard out here that head start, the federally funded program to get children ready to start the public schools -- concerned garden anschools --kit grade -- that's shut down. you know last week when we were in the middle of this shutdown, there was a storm brewing down in the gulf of mexico. thank the good lord it fizzled out. but at one point it was expected to turn into a category 1 hurricane, hitting the gulf coast. and had that happened, do you know what? fema had been laid off, although they reached back and started national guard, et cetera, et cetera. thank goodness for secretary of defense chuck hagel finding an unintended consequence in the law that was passed to pay the united states military while the government's shut down because he found a little hook in there that, in fact -- mr. president, i ask two more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: he found a hook in there that then he could extend that to most of the furloughed civilian work force, including some in the national guard. but we didn't know that. and down in my state of florida, 156 employees were getting the notices go just in the national guard on friday and there was already a thousand military technicians that had been furloughed in the national guard and we had an inbound storm. what about the programs in our state to help veterans find jobs? if we're not done with this shutdown at the end of october, that's gone. how about the florida fish and wildlife commission, a part of the state of government? 10% of their funds are federal funds. how about the florida department of agriculture? over 6% of their work force are federally funded. and what about -- and you've heard this out here -- what about women, infants, and children? you know, a society is supposed to take care of its very old and its very young, and that's why we have programs for women, infants and children. and yet the supplemental nutrition program for women, for nursing mothers, for children up to the age of five for breastfeeding support, for nutrition education, for health checkups -- it's gone. mr. president, i could go on and on. others have said it more articulately than me. this is ridiculous. this shouldn't go on like this. and now, as the drumbeat of the very shacrescendo continues, itl grow larger as we march toward october the 17th, when i the debt ceiling has to be raised so we don't go into default. mr. president, it's a sad day. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of two individuals who will come up for a vote at 5:00. , no we haven't set any records here in the senate in the last five weeks for productivity. we passed one major piece of legislation which the senator from oregon brought before us relative to the issue of our helium preserve. great work. one of the few bipartisan things we've accomplished in five weeks. maybe the only bipartisan thing. well, here's a chance to improve our record at 5:00. there are two nominees for federal district court judge in illinois that i commend to the members of united states senate and let me say at the outset, it isn't just this side of the aisle and this senator making the recommendation. senator mark kirk and i worked together on a bipartisan basis to come up with these nominees and to get them approved by our nomination committees, then approved by us, by the white house, by the judiciary committee, brought to the floor. since senator kirk's been elected, we have done this in lock-step together every step of the way and by tradition, the president's party's senator, in this case myself, has three appointments, senator kirk has the fourth. but each of us has the veto power over the other's choices. so we have a working relationship and a good one, and senator kirk has endorsed these two nominees, colin bruce, bhoans nominated to serve that the central district of illinois, and sara ellis nominated to serve in the northern district. they have the experience, qualification and integrity to be excellent jobs. both appeared before the senate judiciary committee on june 19. both reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote. i'd like to briefly discuss their backgrounds and qualifications. colin bruce nomineed to fill the judicial vacancy. michael mccuskey is also one of my appointments, an outstranding federal judge. i am sorry that he's going on senior status, but he felt, and i did, too, that colin bruce would be an excellent replacement to succeed him in that position. mr. bruce has worked in the u.s. attorney's office for the central district of illinois since 199. he currently is in a position he has had since 2010, the man i selected jim lewis hired him as his first assistant. it was about two months ago that jim lewis, the district -- the u.s. district attorney came by my office with colin bruce. we talked about a number of things and then he said incidentally, i don't know what i'd do without colin bruce. he is such an extraordinary first assistant. when he finished his presentation, i said, jim, would you stick around for a minute. i said, jim, i have got an opening for a judge here. and i know colin is a person who would fill that bill. he has already gone through all the vetting. he would be an extraordinary judge, but you'd lose him as your first assistant. he said, i can't stand in his way. i couldn't think of a better choice to be a judge in this district. colin bruce was born in urban u, illinois. he got his undergraduate and law degrees degrees from the university of illinois. he handled civil and criminal cases and tort cases and claims filed against the government. in 2007 appointed branch chief of the urbana division. 2010 first assistant u.s. attorney which is the number-two position. in his current capacity he oversees the day-to-day operations of the u.s. attorney's office. he handles civil defense and affirmative litigation in the district in which the u.s. is a party. he has received numerous recognitions, certifications of afreerks the justice department, the f.b.i., the d.e. ark the metropolitan enforcement group and task force. he has a record of giving back to the urbana community through his association with charities like central illinois chapter of the american red cross and imagine no malaria, a charity purchasing mosquito nets for children in africa. he is an outstanding nominee for the federal bench and he has a great family. i urge my colleagues to join with senator kirk and me in supporting his nomination. the second nominee is sara he will list, she's been nominated to the chicago-based judgeship formerly okayed by judge gotchow. she works as a law firm in chicago where her practice involves white-collar criminal crime, criminal matters i should say, complex civil litigation and corporate counseling. she was born in ontario, canada, to parents who had emigrated from jamaica. her undergraduate degree is from indiana university, her law degree from loyola school of law in chicago. after law school, miss he will list joined the federal defender program in chicago, served for six years as staff attorney and represented indigent criminal defendants in all aspects of criminal lit gas emissions, preliminary hearings, trials, sentencing and appeals. then worked in private practice before joining the city of chicago department of law in 2004 where she served as assistant corporation counsel for four years. primarily handing section 1983 cases. in 2008, ms. he will list joined schiff-harass deny. she seabed as ads jufnghts professor as loyola university chicago school of law teaching federal criminal practice and legal wright. a distinguished record of pro bono work, she's taught reading and legal skills to children living in juvenile detention. she has provided guidance to the warren park youth baseball league. she is actively involved with the kath lithuania board in chicago. she is an excellent nominee for federal judge, another person with a great family and children backing her up. i am happy that senator kirk and i can commend her as well to the senate for this nomination. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm these two nominees who have bipartisan support and will be outstanding federal judges. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from or omplet. mr. wyden: mr. president, before he leaves the floor, let me thank the senator for his kind words. mr. president, on friday last, it was thrilling to read that the united states is now number one in the world when it comes to energy production. not saudi arabia, not russia. our country. and particularly, mr. president, it was a source of such satisfaction because, after all these years, the american people hearing about how we're dependent on foreign sources of energy, at the top of our papers friday last, the energy experts said that the red, whierkts and blue was at the top in terms of energy production. and this good new-news story abt the energy boom is absolutely essential to creating more high-skill, high-wage jobs. i saw it with my colleague when i was in his state. you see it all across the country, this energy boom, for example, has been key to triggering a manufacturing renaissance, the lower cost of natural gas in particular being a magnet to bring companies that had gone overseas back to the united states again employing our workers with good-paying jobs. and it's been key to the falling imports of foreign oil and, of course, wind and solar farms are adding tremendously to the power mix. in our part of the country, it's sheep lard slatt, our state's biggest wind farm that we are proud of. but, mr. president, the current, senseless government shut downis putting this good-news story at risk. when it comes to causing problems, unfortunately, this shutdown has something for everybody. if you care about oil and natural gas development, federal agencies now cannot approve drilling permits either on federal land or offshore. if you care about real estate -e energy, wind and wave energy permitting is now at a standstill. it is at a standstill because of the shutdown. environmental reviews for solar farms on federal land has stopped, and the federal energy regulatory commission has canceled a meeting about implementing two hydropower bills that passed this congress, mr. president, on overwhelming votes. now, in my part of the country we are especially proud of this legislation. hydropower is responsible -- is actually the biggest source of clean power in the united states. industry estimates that it could generate perhaps as much as 60,000 megawatts of additional clean power, and these hydropower bills -- there were two of them -- were the first stand-alone energy bills to become law since 2009. now, mr. president, they languish because of the shutdown. all of these developments -- these developments that i've described with respect to natural gas development, solar and wind energy, the hydropower laws that passed overwhelmingly in both the senate and the house -- now, in effect, languishing and what it really means is less new energy, fewer new jobs, and less revenue, less revenue that we're going to need in both the public and the private sector. might also add this shutdown harms the important safety work that needs to be done by blocking work that's going to speed up response to oil spills and accidents offshore. of particular concern to me, mr. president, and i know so many others in the senate -- i see my colleague from alaska here -- the people who get hammered, who really get hit hardest by these consequences, are our rural communities, the ones that depend on producing energy and timber and recreation. they are the ones who feel the biggest hit from the shutdown. i'm going to talk about what this really means in terms of recreation and hunting and fishing. hunting season starts at different times in different parts of the country. but between recreation and hunting and fishing, we're talking about something in the vicinity of 600 -- excuse me, $646 billion a year, mr. president, goes just to the recreation sector. another $140-plus billion in terms of hunting, and i'm going to describe the consequences there. but we are talking about policies with enormous impact for our rural communities. and i can tell you, i got some additional news -- i mentioned the thrilling news last friday about how we were toss in terms of energy production -- we were tops in terms of energy production, but it wasn't exactly a thrill last friday to get called, mr. president, by the chief of the forest service, tom tilwell, who called to report that the forest service had canceled timber sales on 140 national sales across the country. twha means is that loggers like the hardworking folks that i represent in oregon who want to do a hard day's work, they're being benched because of this shutdown. and the shutdown comes at a particularly ominous time because it comes at a tile with winter, you know, at hand, in effect, putting an end to logging operations for the year in many parts of our country. so that means workers won't be able to make up for lost time and money this year. they're simply -- those loggers are going to have to get by with less. so, again, rural communities are the face of what this really means. they're the ones that are going to get walloped because, really, a handful of members of congress, a handful of members of congress won't fund the government. so logging, energy, recreation -- i mentioned the hunting season, sort of the flip side of the coin with respect to recreation, the hunting season for ducks and geese starting up in my home state and across the country. the government shutdown here is closing hundreds of wildlife refuges where those waterfowl are nor normally game. they usually generate about $144 billion a year. hunters contribute $.5 billion in state and local taxes each year. because waterfowl season there is a only three months longs in or, if you lose in a week every lost week is a huge bite out of the benefits that hunting tbroi- that hunting brings to our local economies. what senators may also not be aware of is the shutdown also means that our government is less prepared to respond to these fires, these rapidly developing, dangerous infernos in our national forests. forest fire risk is lessened in some parts of the west, but there are areas of high to extreme danger in california, montana, new mexico, south dakota and other states. while many firefighters are considered essential, others, such as our off-duty firefighters, have been furloughed. and public safety on federal lands is also impacted by these furloughs. although law enforcement continues without rangers and other agency employees o on han, the conditions are ripe for visitors to find themselves into understaffed forests and pose a safety risk. and of course thousands of hardworking employees at these key natural resource agencies are now out of work. as we we peek 24,000 at the forest service. more than 10,000 furloughed at the bureau of land management. mr. president, if they're not work be bureau of land management employees can't issue permits for grazing on federal lands. energy department workers and contractors can't clean up nuclear waste sites like the hanford reservation that threatens the columbia river and the million people who live downstream. our committee, recognizing the situation, recently had to cancel a hearing on the columbia river treaty, which is vital to the energy and environment of the pacific northwest. it's vital, mr. president, to our relations with canada. this treaty is about managing a river that is the lifeblood for the pacific northwest. it's our lifeblood for transportation, for electricity, for fish. and there isn't much time for our two nations to really come together to decide the treaty's future. in just wrapping up, mr. president, i would just say i've tried to describe what the shutdown means in terms of our status as number-one in energy production, what it means with respect to logging and forest fires, hunting and recreation. and it's all happening because a small group of members in the other chamber are demanding negotiations with the american economy tied to the train tracks. and i'll close with this, mr. president. it is especially ironic that in many cases the districts of those members are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of the impact. those rural communities. they are the ones who are going to bear the consequences of stalled energy production and stalled logging. and i hope that we can quickly come together, pass this budget without all the various additions that have made it impossible for the congress to go forward. it's time to reopen the government. i spent a lot of time working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these other issues. we'll continue to do so. and i know a lot of senators will. right now it is time to reopen the government and end the shutdown. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: will the senator stay on the floor for a moment for a question? one of the bills i know that was mentioned by the senator from illinois was the helium bill. within that, there is an important alaska priority. i know my colleagues worked with you and it is important to my state, and it is cleaning up these legacy wells, these wells that have been there on federal land for years and, you know, oil literally seeping out of these wells. now there is money for the first time in i don't know how many years to actually clean up these wells. but from what i just heard, and correct me if i'm wrong -- and i have a couple more questions -- and correct me if i'm wrong but what you just indicated was bureau of land management, they don't have the capacity to do permitting and other staffing, so these wells, there is no work to be done. even though now we finally passed a bipartisan bill, both houses, signed by the president, something that's been waiting for decades, now to be cleaned. am i correct on this that b.l.m. now can't do the work that we want them to do and the american people do, and alaskans have been desperately waiting for for decades? mr. wyden: what we know for certain, i would say to the senator, is 10,000 individuals have been furloughed at the bureau of land management. so clearly, this important work -- and i tried to describe particularly getting these new permits. i guess if you're already out there with something -- and i talked to chief tidwell about how he would try to stabilize operations put in place now but, yes, you're not going to be able to go forward with operations like the senator from alaska described. mr. begich: you came to the state a few months ago and had an opportunity to see our great ability with energy companies and what we're trying to do. today i got an announcement, an important announcement from exxon and conocophillips about "bilding" a gasification, building a gasification plant that i know you had a chance to see. i want to say thank you for the announcement. it will be a multibillion-dollar investment in our state, something we've been doing it for 40 years, exporting to japan. but now the permits they'll need, the odds of them getting them or getting them in a timely manner is now delayed. is that a fair statement? mr. wyden: again the senator is right because alaska, like oregon, there is an extraordinary level of federal ownership. in my state the federal government owns more than half of land, and the senator is absolutely correct with in effect the shutdown, federal agencies cannot approve drilling permits either on federal land or offshore. and i saw both when i was in alaska. you know, the point is these are issues that we can work on in a bipartisan way. and as soon as the government gets reopened, we'll set about to the task of getting those permits out and coming together on a bipartisan basis as we've done on so many issues. but we can't do it if the government is shut down. we can't do it if we can't pay our bills. and that's what we're going to have to deal with first. mr. begich: i think this is more of a question comment, the last part i'll say in one of your statements at the end there, you talked about how this is held up. we passed a bill out of here, a continuing resolution in which we cut on an annualized basis $70 billion. we didn't compromise. we took their number. we talk about negotiations. we negotiated starting back in july, reduced, reduced, reduced, and then we went to their number. $70 billion annualized reduction. the body passed it. and nothing passes out of this body unless you get a motion to proceed with some sort of unanimous consent or bipartisan -- that was 99-0. people forget that. 99-0 to move us to the bill. then we moved it, sent it over to the house, where it has sat since the day we sent it over there, which would have kept this budget operating. and again, it had a $70 billion annualized reduction. i think that was your point toward the end of your comments, that a simple vote over there would put everyone back to work. these permits we just talked about, the cleaning up the legacy wells, the timber which we have in southeast now, alaska, is now in jeopardy because our federal lands, your federal lands are now at risk sthafplt a fair assess -- are now at risk. is that a fair assessment? mr. wyden: it is. i was one, i'm sure the senator was involved in this as well, where after all these years hearing the senate hadn't passed a budget, we stayed up one night until the wee hours. we passed a budget. we had scores and scores of votes. and then a lot of simply wanted to have a conference with the other body. and after hearing that there hadn't been a budget, we thought lickety-split we'd be able to get that conference going, and we haven't been able to do that either. mr. begich: passed their budget too. we had two budgets ready to go to conference. is that fair? mr. wyden: it was there for the doing. i remember coming to the floor and asking unanimous consent to go to conference. i knew there had been some conferencing, but there was an immediate objection. and i pointed out that at that time republican and democratic economists were saying look to the long term. and i was especially proud, and i talked about it that day, saying that senator isakson of georgia, very able member of the finance committee, he and i have new ideas on medicare that we think can protect the medicare guarantee and hold costs down. but you can't get at those kinds of issues unless you first as a -- the senator says, reopponent government with that simple -- reopen the government with that simple vote. mr. begich: i appreciate that comment. i think it is important again to point out that budget was passed back in the april, may area. we did ours. they did theirs. we tried 18 times to bring the two parties together. we tried unanimous consent, as you've noted here on the floor, 18 times. unable to do it. then we went to the continuing resolution. that negotiation started in july. the house had one number. we had one number. as time progressed, we took their number, $70 billion annualized reduction. we took their number. some would not call that a compromise. that would just take their number. but we'll call it negotiation, compromise because we wanted to get it done, we again sent it over there. it has sat idle. one person, the speaker over there, could put it on the floor. i heard him on the radio over the weekend, or tv explaining how the votes aren't there. the votes aren't there, put it on the floor, it will fail. but the reality is the votes are there. just as we have taken every one of their items, brought it to the floor, we have voted on every single item, they haven't prevailed but we voted on it because that's the process. but for whatever reason over there, it's gone over there and sat idle. he doesn't think the votes are there; put it up. his side will win then. but there is clearly republicans and democrats over on the house side that want to put the government back in operation so we can get on to these bigger issues. is that a fair chronology of events there? mr. wyden: it is. what i was struck by over the weekend with respect to those comments is why not at least try that? it just seems if you add up all the senators on both sides of the aisle who said that they would vote for what -- mr. begich: house members? mr. wyden: correct. the house members who have said that they would vote for it, it sure looks like the votes are there. and if you're trying to break the gridlock, why not try? so i hope that kind of thinking will set in here in the next few hours, because that would be the fastest way, the fastest way, as the senator from alaska has made clear, to get the government open again. mr. begich: thank you for allowing me to ask some questions. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are in day number seven of this government shutdown. as was pointed out by the senator from alaska and the senator from oregon, we started out with a continuing resolution of $1,058,000,000,000. that was compromised down with the understanding there would be a c.r., that wasn't good enough because there were some that wanted to add different amendments to deal with the affordable health care act. the bottom line is we're in the throes of a governmental shutdown. it was interesting that since this government was shut down, it will be midnight tonight it has been a solid week. we have seen bills come over from the house that would fund the v.a., national park service. it's interesting there is nobody -- the senator from alaska is on the veterans' affairs committee. we both work very hard for rural veterans in this country, but we both know the v.a. can't do their job unless the i.r.s. has funding and c.m.s. has funding. it's great to put that political gesture out there but the truth is they can't do their job until we have more than just the v.a. funding. then there was a story of childhood cancer, so the house came across, said maybe we ought to fund the national institutes of health. then there was the terrible scene last week where capitol police officers who were all laid off -- actually they were still working, without pay -- had to address a lady that had driven into a police officer's building by the hart building. since those officers respond, maybe we should pay them. they came across with a bill for them. they should be paid all the time, i might add. then there is the issue of hurricane karen so we need to fund fema. they came across with a bill to fund fema. then they thought all these furloughed federal employees, we should pay them. and i agree we should. the fact is they do a great job and they should be back here working, which every one of them want to be back here working to get that back pay. and then they decided to fund things like food inspectors because they understand that our food security is at risk. look, these guys can't see past their political noses. the bottom line is that, as the previous speakers talked about, if in fact the speaker of the house, with the clean resolution for $986 billion, it would pass the house. they said it wouldn't this weekend. okay, so, if it doesn't, put it up anyway. prove us wrong. the bottom line is that it would pass, and this senseless shutdown would be over. there are plenty of things out there that continue to hamper this country's moving forward economically due to this economic shutdown. we've talked about head start. we've talked about forest service suspending logging contracts. i heard the senator from alaska talk about drilling permits. the fact is in montana being an outdoor state, people live for this time of year. it's called hunting season. and a lot of the hunting, camping, fishing sites access has been severely restricted. this weekend, a national guard -- national guard furloughed their drill for 3,500 guardsmen. communities around our national parks are being severely impacted, losing literally millions and millions of dollars, which is real money. so how do we get out of this? it's pretty simple. if the speaker put the bill on the floor, it would pass. he refuses to do that. i think he refuses to do it for another reason, and that reason is that i think there is a lot of his members over there that want to cater to the tea party movement but go back home and want to appear like they're moderates. they had that -- if they had that vote, it would certainly point out who stands for what in that body, and that's why he needs to have the vote. as was said with the senator from oregon, the senator from alaska, we have had votes on everything they have sent over here, just about, and the fact is that they need to do the same. we sent a clean c.r. over to them. i think unless they really want this shutdown to go on and on for some unknown reason, they would vote on that clean c.r. and then we're rapidly approaching the debt ceiling, which puts the full faith and credit of this country at risk if we don't increase it, and i might add that this isn't money that's yet to be spent. this is money that has been spent. it's not unlike the mortgage on your house or your credit card bill. if you don't pay them, interest rates will go up, and if we don't increase the debt limit, interest rates on our national debt will go up. and those that are concerned about the debt and the deficit, as i am, and others on both sides of the aisle will see our national debt increase, not decrease, by doing something as silly as not increasing the debt ceiling. now, i know there are some in this body that would love to put issues on the debt ceiling, and they're playing with fire. we saw what happened in 2011 when our credit rating was downgraded because we were just talking -- some were just talking about not increasing the debt ceiling. the truth is is that i'll be the first to work with anybody in this body to try to reduce the debt and the deficit by reducing spending, by removing tax loopholes in the code. we need to do that at the front end, not the back end. the debt limit is dealing with the issue at the back end, and if we don't do it, if we don't increase that debt ceiling, we will see the economy spiral down out of control, potentially even putting us into a depression. and i don't say that to scare people. i say that to make the point that we shouldn't be fooling around with this issue. we're grown adults here. we need to get together and realize that the debt ceiling is too important to play politics with. and i know that since i have been here -- and this government shutdown issue is a prime example -- politics have trumped policy nearly every time. it is time to endorse the right policy. get a long-term comprehensive deal that isn't a patch, that doesn't add to the uncertainty but yet puts us by the continuing resolution, gets us out on the debt ceiling so we don't have to deal with this every 45 or 90 days and we don't have to deal with the debt ceiling just about every year. and i think if we were to do that and the cooler minds would prevail, we could see this country start to really grow economically. we would see the unemployment drop even more than we've seen it previously, and we would see this country go on to a -- an opportunity to pay down our debt and deficit in a way that makes sense for our kids and grandkids. i don't know where this is going to end. i can tell you that the folks back home see it for what it is, and they're tired of the foolishness and they want to see it stopped, and i can tell you that what makes it particularly frustrating for me is is that, as i see businesses start to expand, as i see entrepreneurs starting to be ready to take chances, they look at what goes on in washington, d.c., and go whoa, this isn't worth it, we don't know what the future is to bring because of the uncertainty of -- not only the continuing resolution, keeping the government open, but also the talk that has been revolving now for some time around the debt ceiling talk. so with that, mr. president, i would hope that this body would do the right thing and that it would push the house to do the right thing, and that is put the clean resolution on the floor in the house, let's get the debt ceiling behind us, let's talk about the debt and debt ceiling in a meaningful way. thank you, mr. president. a senator: could i ask a clarification on one of your beginning statements? mr. tester: sure. mr. begich: from what i saw -- and we hear over and over again, there is not negotiations going on, there is not compromising going on, but if i hear your numbers right, there was negotiations, there was compromise. as a matter of fact, there was so much compromise, we went to the house number, not to our number, their number. we actually reduced the budget on an annualized basis $70 billion. isn't that what your numbers -- i mean, you're on the appropriations committee, i am on the appropriations committee. it's one thing we do know a lot about, and that's numbers. mr. tester: it is, it is a much lower number. i will tell you this, the senator from alaska, the good senator from alaska. that is what happened in the negotiations, and the upshot of all that was that we would get a clean c.r. coming back if we negotiated down to that figure, that there wouldn't be a bunch of games being played. mr. begich: a lot of stuff added on that wasn't necessary. we could debate those later. mr. tester: absolutely, and should debate them later. but the bottom line is it's important that we keep our government open. why? because we're wasting a ton of money the way it's being done right now. and this piecemeal funding for trying to get political advantage is crazy. people see it for what it is. it's political gamesmanship. mr. begich: isn't it odd that they would pass a let's pay everybody, everybody, 435-0, they pass it, but they only want to have some of them come back to work. now, if you're a fiscal conservative -- and i think i'm -- we're from montana, alaska, fairly conservative states. i want them working if we're paying them. doesn't that make sense? instead it seems like you're just giving a couple of agencies, but they are still going to pay everybody. i don't know where the logic is there. mr. tester: why not have them come back? we know the value of the work. we know the value of work to the self-esteem. we know the fact that those folks are important to my office. if they weren't important to my office, they wouldn't be working for me. and they are important to everybody's offices. as we tell folks what's going on, help a lot of our constituents when they have problems with some of the agencies around. but the bottom line is they are setting at home. these aren't rich folks. a lot of them are hand-to-mouth. they don't know how long this government shutdown is going to go on, and they want to go back to work. mr. begich: i guess one more. you said something i thought was very interesting on the budget deficit. you and i are both kind of new around here. you are older than me. i came here two years after you. when we came in, dealing with the debt ceiling, which is really just about paying your bills. got to pay the bills that were racked up for a period of time before we got here, but they came. i think in 2009, the deficit per year was $1.4 trillion. this year, that just kind of closed out because we're still not done, was about $630 billion. almost a 60% reduction in the deficit. we're headed the right way, but this isn't helping. mr. tester: yeah, and my last point would be this. if we're going to debt the debt and deficit under control, one of the things we have to do is grow the economy. by stopping government with this continuing resolution, by talking silly talk about increasing the debt limit, it does not do good things for our economy. in fact, it takes it in the wrong direction. we see businesses contract when we start seeing what's going on here in washington. it really is time to start using some common sense. folks -- there is folks who claim to be business representatives out there. i talked to a bunch of businesses this afternoon. every one of them said they ought to quit messing around, get to an agreement, have the debates on debt and deficit you need to have because they are important to have, but don't hold up the debt limit and don't hold up the government funding in the process. i want to thank my friend from alaska. mr. begich: i thank my good friend for allowing knee me to take a few minutes and ask a couple of points. i will just say that's what this debate is about, it's a simple question, allowing the vote on the house side. if they believe they don't have the votes -- obviously the speaker over there believes he doesn't have the vote -- then let it be on the floor, it will fail and we'll be back to the drawing board. but the reality is he knows, he knows the votes are there. we would be out of this shutdown, the result would be that people would be back to work, services would be provided and the businesses will not be losing confidence that they're losing every day today or like the market once again -- since this debate started and the threats of shutdown to the actual shutdown, the stock market over the last 15, 16 days has lost almost 600 points. now, those are people -- most people don't pay a lot of attention to that, but if you have an education account, a 401-k account, a retirement account, i.r.a. or you have a little money set aside, it has direct impact to your livelihood over the long haul. so i would just encourage the speaker on the house, representative speaker boehner to allow a single vote. we have on every bill that's come over here. now, they haven't prevailed but we have allowed a vote, that's the process. over there they have refused. they keep sending back gimmicks. it is surprising to me to understand this logic. they want to pay every single federal employee, but they're only going to have some of them come back to work. it makes no sense. if you're paying your employees, have them come back and work. you know, i run a small business, my wife runs a small business. i know the senator from montana who just left here runs a small business. you don't pay your people not to come to work. when you pay them to work, you pay them to work. you were a governor, mr. president. you wouldn't say one day, oh, by the way, i will pay everyone, stay home for a month. no, you would have them come to work if you are paying them, unless they have leave or vacation time. but this is crazy. it passes unanimous on the house side. and they say but we don't want you to work. the taxpayers should be outraged about that. i'm happy, i want to vote on that bill. i want to vote on that furlough bill. i want to make sure everyone gets paid and then i want to follow it up with the c.r. and put everyone back to work. that's what we should be doing here. not these games when they bring over political statements with the items they're bringing over. do we want to vote against veterans? of course not. i have the highest per-capita veterans in my state, in my state compared to any other state. veterans are important to our economy, and they have served this country. they deserve every benefit. but to play this game of leveraging, the american people see right through this. these guys who keep bringing these schemes over here, for them to think that they are thinking one step ahead of the american people, they are absolutely wrong. the american people are two, three steps ahead of us. they see the show and tell that's going on, and it doesn't make sense. again, if you're going to fund all the employees -- and again, 435-0, they voted to fund all the employees that get paid, but then they only want some to go to work. it makes no sense to me at all. so i appreciate the time, i appreciate the president's time allowing me the opportunity toen gang with a -- to engage with a couple of my colleagues down here. but every time they spoke, i wanted to explain and kind of show the farce that's going on over there and what's happening over there with a small group of tea party very small 30, 40 members who decided how they are going to run the government here. the government is not run by one group. it is run on compromise and negotiations. we negotiate all the way down to their number, $70 billion in annualized cuts. we have put every single one of their bills on the floor here. we have voted on it. now all we ask is one simple vote. a clean c.r. that sits in the speaker's office ready to be put on the floor. he even says it will fail. okay. let's see. let's see where his votes are. let's see where it all is. if it fails, we will be right back where we are today. no difference. so what does he fear? he fears the fact it will pass. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.  quorum call: mr. begich: mr. president, i ask to vacate the quorum. the presiding officer: the quorum call will be suspended. the senator from alaska. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, colin sterling bruce of illinois to be united states district judge. sara lee ellis of illinois to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. begich: i ask unanimous consent the time be equally charged to both sides during the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be diswendz with. the presiding officer: without objection the call of the quorum be suspended. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is considering judicial nominations under the previous order. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, today we are going to vote on two of the district court nominations pending before the senate. i'm glad we're getting to these important nominations. we should have -- weeks ago, the normal course of events should have just been done in a routine fashion. but there has been this concerted effort to slow up president obama's judges, something we've never seen with other presidents but we do with him. but i am glad at least these are going through. but i hope that on the same vein, we see the needless government shutdown, i hope it comes to an end so the senate can tend to the business of the country including as i said on the floor the other day, ensuring that the courts have the judges they need. in fact, as far as the judges, speaking of both from illinois that have the support of senator durbin and senator kirk, i'd ask my full statement regarding those judges be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i can't help but think, and i have spoke on the floor i think every day since this happened, what has become an all-too-familiar scene around the capitol the past couple of years, we find ourselves in a stalemate over providing funding to keep the federal government running. i share the frustration of most americans, republicans and democrats, what was once the regular business of congress, funding the government, has been replaced by political theater and artificial made-in-congress crisis that might get a number of people on television but while doing it they imperil the economy and in many ways large and small every single family in america. makes no difference what their politics are, they're imperilled. of course there is an easy way to resolve this fabricated crisis. the house of representatives could simply vote on the senate bill, a clean consideration, has no -- clean continuing resolution, it provides the funding necessary to keep the federal government open through november 15, and speaker boehner could accept the offer that leader reid made to get on with the business of negotiating and passing this year's appropriations bill. bills that were supposed to have been passed by the end of last month. now, over the past week, the house has had ample opportunity to end this shutdown. they could have passed the senate's legislation to fund all the federal agencies, provide a time to find a path forward. but a faction -- not the whole house by any means -- a faction of dream extreme house members supported by their leadership have prevented the full body from voting on the senate bill. extreme republican members, certainly don't represent the kind of republicans we have in vermont but these extreme republican house members have prevented the full body have voting on the senate bill. instead, what do they do? they're collecting their salaries but they close the government, all because they want to erode access to affordable private health care ochtions for millions of uninsured americans. unconscionable and they have not come up with an alternative. they say we'll get rid of you able to have your college-age children on your health insurance but we have no alternative. we're going to get rid of the ability for your spouse who nay may have had a preexisting condition, cancer, diabetes, or heart condition, for having insurance, we're going to get rid of that, but we have nothing as an alternative. we're going to get rid of you who might be a low-income person who get insurance, but we have no alternative. we just want to get rid of it. now, there's no question this is a crisis driven by a handful of partisans other than-on the other side of the aisle for whom there is no path to compromise on just about anything. well, we with one exception. they do find every possible the opportunity before a television camera to talk about what they've done but the american people know what they're doing. it's hurting them terribly. the demands are constantly shifting and breathtakingly unreasonable. one of them says we have to have something for this. what do you have to have? i don't know but we have to have something. come on. these are like little children in a sand box arguing. but while the senate has voted on one flawed house proposal after another, the house refuses to vote anything from the senate. incredibly, these same extremists -- and they are extremists -- are now threatening to employ the same tactic when the government reaches a statutory limit in a couple of weeks. it's interesting, when the speaker says we're not going to be able to do anything on debt limit, you saw the stock market was projected to be up 150, 200 points, suddenly go like that and down 150 points, 300-point swing right then. so, in other words, we'll continue our sloganeering and our stalling and no matter what that might do to your savings for retirement or pension or kids in college or small businesses that are trying to make money so they can stay in business, we don't care comaps what happens to you because we got to be on the evening news and talk about how we're standing up for america. no, they're not standing up for america. in fact, the treasury department reported last week the failure to raise the debt limit could cause credit markets to freeze, the dollars to plummet, interest rates to rise precipitously, the report goes on on to say a government default on its debt might prove so catastrophic it could potentially result in a financial crisis and rescission that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. they don't seem to care, so long as they get on television. we've all heard a lot of talk and seen a lot of crocodile tears about getting our fiscal house in order. oh, what a great campaign slogan. too many who got elected are not following through on their constitutional responsibility to govern. just look at their list of ransom demands for reopening the government. the first one blows $100 billion hole in the national debt by repealing the affordable care act. the second one adds $30 billion more to the debt without offering any suggestion for making up the revenue. the third still keeps closed important government functions like providing food assistance to young children, expectant mothers, seniors, continuing health trials that might cure cancer or childhood diseases. and the list goes on and on. now, it's truly unfortunate that a relative few who are obviously enjoying the limelight, the relatively few in congress on the other side of the aisle, republicans in congress are willing to play politics and brinksmanship at a time when the public demands statesmanship. their reckless actions are hurting families all across america. i'd remind them, they're hurting democratic families, republican families, independent families. they're hurting americans. for this small extreme faction, it seems "compromise" is a dirty word and "distrust" is a political tactic. that may explain why we've heard excuse after excuse for blocking the budget discipline they so desperately pled for just a short time ago. you know, they said, why don't you get a budget? why doesn't the senate get a budget? well, mr. president, i was in the chair at 5:00 in the morning on a saturday morning when we were voting on that budget. we voted all day and all night and we finished it. that was back in april. and so what happens? we want to go to a conference on it and work out the differences with the house. instead of a conference, if you count the number of people that would be on it, there would be more republicans than democrats. but it was a republican senator who stood on the floor and said, i object to going to conference. same one giving speeches about saying how come we don't have a budget. and then when we pass a budget, we have to go to the next step to work it out with the house. "oh, no, i object to that." probably because he's surprised we'd actually done our work. and the chair, patty murray, who did such a brilliant job in getting together a budget that saved the taxpayers' money, they then act terrified that it might actually pass. they've objected 19 times to going forward with that budget conference. they've shut the government down. they're preparing to cause the government's first-ever debt default in our nation's history. that's right. the speaker of the house is now holding the government's credit hostage. he's threatening this weekend to let the nation default come october 17 when the debt limit is reached unless even more draconian spending cuts are made. is there any reason markets all over the world are dropping? is there any reason why the rest of the world looks at america and says, "what are you doing? why are you letting the children in the sand box take over?" we caught just a preview of the chaos such a move could create. stock futures, as i mentioned, dropped sharply. european stocks dropped dramatically in the wake of house republicans' newest ultimatum. this is no way to govern. it's also not an example to set to the rest of the world when we have to go to the rest of the world and say, "help us, work with us to stop the terrorists that threaten the united states. help us, work with us so that we can export our goods to your country. help us, work with us to bring about stability around the world." and they say, "you won't do a thing to even help yourself. why should we help you?" mr. president, i talked to some of these countries, i talked to the people in them, they're shaking their heads and saying, what has happened to america. so it's far past time for reason and sanity to return to congress on this government shutdown, on setting budget priorities and a whole host of other issues. let's let the grownups come back and start running things around here. i remain ready to work with people on both sides of the aisle and i'm proud of my record as the seniormost member of this body, that year after year after year legislation i've had with both republicans and democrats has -- as cosponsored have passed. the distinguished presiding officer was governor of one of the great commonwealths of this country, the commonwealth of virginia. he brought republicans and democrats together. it was a model for the rest of the country. it can be done but it takes grownups to do it. you're always going to have a few loud voices to say, "oh, we can't possibly do this." the american public expect the people who really lead to be leaders. so let's work with people on both sides of the aisle. let's find a solution that ends this needless shutdown and gets us and hundreds of thousands of federal employees back to doing our work on behalf of the american people. but that starts with the house voting on the senate bill to reopen the american people's government. that bill is sitting over there right now. bring it to a vote. right now everybody wants to vote "maybe." vote "yes" or vote "no." vote "yes" will put americans back to work. and will reopen those trials to find cures for childhood diseases. or vote "no," we want continue to be children in the sand box. well, mr. president, i'm blessed with grandchildren. i like to think none of my grandchildren would act as childish as a small group of ultraright-wing republicans have in the house. they don't reflect the great tradition of the republican party in my state or this country. they reflect an atmosphere of people who care only for themselves, no matter what they say. they care only for their own egos and their own political future. it's time they start caring for the united states of america. i see nobody else seeking recognition. i would suggest the absence of a quorum with time as being charged -- to be charg charged h sides. the presiding officer: without objection. and the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, with nobody else seeking recognition, i ask consent that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the question occurs on the bruce nomination. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20131008

it would get us out of this impasse that is increasingly harmful to our country and its image in the world. mr. president, it is past time for us to come out of our partisan corners. it is past time for us to stop fighting. and it is past time for us to reopen government. we all have made crystal clear what our positions are on obamacare at this point. let's proceed with governing rather than continuing to embrace a strategy that will lead us only to a dead end and whose consequences will be increasingly felt by our economy and by the american people. we can do this. i ask my colleagues, my democratic colleagues, to take a close look at the plan that we're putting forward. it is a reasonable approach. i ask my democratic and republican colleagues to come together. let's get this done. we can do it. we can legislate responsibly and in good faith. thank you, mr. president. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to respectfully say that we in the united states senate and we in the united states congress have to do what our constituents elected us to do and that what the constitution requires us to do: keep the united states government open and make sure the united states of america pays its bills. to do that, we are open to negotiation and examining a variety of ideas. but the main ideas go through the regular order in the committee process. we can keep open the government. we can meet our responsibility on the public debt if we embark upon two solutions, and they are in the hands of the other party. we call upon the house to pass the senate continuing funding resolution that would reopen government, keep it going for -- until november 15. no long-term solution. get to it right now. keep it funding at 2013 levels, acknowledging the sequester level. that was a big compromise. i compromised, as the chair of the appropriations committee, to move that continuing funding resolution. it was $70 billion less than what i wanted, but in order to get the conversation going, get the negotiations going, get us into the room, i was willing to compromise. i call upon the house to pass that. i call upon the senate republicans, who have objected to going to the budget committee, to lift their objection so we can take the senate-passed budget and go to conference to give us a budget. now, why is this important? for those who want to say, we've got to control spending, there's nobody who disputes that. but the way you control spending is to go through the regular budget process. i say to many of my colleagues who might not understand the budget control act -- and i say to many of the american people listening -- the way you control discretionary spending is to pass a budget. that sets a cap on what the appropriators can spend in domestic spending. i heard the wonderful senator from arizona, the distinguished war hero, senator john mccain, ask us to get to it today. i agree. let's get to it today and lift the objection for senator murray, the chair of the budget committee, to take appointed conferees and go and negotiate on the budget. i say to my colleagues, again to explain the budget control act, we appropriators are not wild spenders. we appropriators can't go rogue in terms of wild runaway spending. we have a budget cap imposed upon us through a budget process and something called a 302-a. but we can't get that, we can't get the cap on spending unless the budget committee is a able -- is able to move. mr. president, this is really serious. i have the high honor of of representing the state of maryland -- i have the high honor of representing the state of maryland. and i note my colleague from maryland, senator cardin, is on the floor. we represent 5.5 million people, but a lot of civilian agencies. i note also on the floor the distinguished senator from virginia, the former governor of virginia, and also two former governors of virginia. between we four, we represent the largest concentration of federal employees in the world, from the department of defense to the national institutes of health, to the national standards, there is a roll call of honor, of service, and duty that makes the united states a stronger country, a stronger economy, and so on. when we speak about government, we know what we're talking about, and we know what's going on. many have spoken about, let's hope the n.i.h. i want to open n.i.h. that clinical hospital is not accepting to new patients. 200 people this week have been turned away. children in the united states of america turned away. and i.t. noand it's not just me. "the washington post" reported on a lady who has cancer who comes -- wants to come to the n.i.h., but she can't get into a clinical trial because it is closed down. they say, well, senator barb, open the n.i.h. but you have to open the rest. government. -- but you have to open the rest of the government. right now the center for disease control has a substantial number of its workforce furloughed. c.d.c. is being closed and that constitutes a danger to public health. right this minute in 18 states, 280 people have been sickened by salmosalmonella. thank god there have been no deaths. but it making people very sick. we don't have c.d.c. on the job tracking the way it should and also alerting public health departments around the united states of america how they should be standing sentry to protect people against salmonella. open up the c.d.c. open up the whole government. just this week in our own metropolitan area, a worker was killed trying to service the the metro. this should be under investigation. one death, several injuries. there was a bus crash in tennessee, but right this very minute the national transportation safety board has the majority of their people furloughed. they cannot investigate the metro accident. they can't investigate the bus crash in tennessee. a weeks ago senator cardin and i knew that a person had a terrible accident on the bay bridge in which a car went over the side. we've asked for an investigation to make sure our bridge is safe. that is under way, but it's going to be delayed. now, let's take our f.b.i. our f.b.i. agents are on the job. they're being paid with i.u.u. u.'s -- with i.o.u.'s. but a group of f.b.i. agents said to us that you're united states government. guess p what is this w what? we don't have gas for our cars. the f.b.i. does not have gas for its cars. agents gas is limited to 200 miles per week, and they can't even buy gas out of their own pocket. well, mr. president, not only is the f.b.i. running out of gas, i think we're running out of gas here. and the way we fuel our tanks and get america running and rolling again is to reopen government. the way you reopen government is mr. boehner, the speaker of the house, under his job as the speaker, we respectfully call upon him to vote on reopening the government by voting on the senate-passed resolution. we say to our colleagues here on the other side of the aisle, lift your objection to the budget committee going to conference so they can come up with a budget and place your caps on domestic discretionary spending. we -- and place your caps on all discretionary spending. we appropriators will abide by the cap. we will not have runaway spending, we won't go rogue, we will follow the rules. but i think we need to follow the rules. under the statutory requirement of the budget control act, they were supposed to bring a budget back april 15. well, we passed one on march 23, and we're waiting and we're waiting. so i want to join with my colleague from arizona. let's get to it. let's get the job done. let's reopen government. let's pay our bills. i'm willing to negotiate. i'm willing to compromise. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would suggest that, of those who have just spoken prior to me, it sounds to me like we ought to be able to get something done around here. we've listened to the chairman of the appropriations committee, with her commitment to advancing things through the budget process. i, too, think that we need to go to conference an g.e.d. that moving. mr. president, we're sitting here in a kind of a rarefied world here in the united states senate in these chambers. some would suggest that we live in a little bit of a bubble. let me tell you the folks who are not living in a bubble. those who have been furloughed as federal employees, those that have been shut out of whatever it is that they had hoped they were going to be doing this past week, those in my state, for instance, that are look to fill the family freezer. it's moose season, but now they're told that they can't access any of the refuge lands because fish and wildlife has said you cannot access these lands regardless of what anilca provides, regardless of the promise for full public access to these federal lands. those folks who are feeling the real impact of a government shutdown are not living in a bubble. we just heard the chairman of the finance committee talk about the looming threat that we are facing as we approach the debt limit, and he refers to a fiscal cliff and the fact that, in fact, as a nation we could lose our financial footing, we could go over that fiscal cliff. well, for a lot of folks, they're already looking at their own fiscal cliff. they're not waiting for us to figure out what we're going to do or not do when it comes to dealing with the debt limit. they're not getting paid. they are perhaps a small business, like song's su g's sur in june know. they're -- in juneau. they're losing business because they don't have the folks that frequent capital brews, which is a drive-thru coffee shop also there in juneau a cross from the federal -- across from the federal building. these are folks that are lookint it, and they're feeling their own fiscal cliff right now, with or without the threat of the debt limit. so they're looking at us and they're saying, wait a minute, you told us a couple weeks ago that we were going to avert this shutdown, that we would figure out how we're going to pass a continuing resolution. we didn't pass a continuing resolution. somehow or other that all gets wrapped up in obamacare. they're trying to figure out where's the nexus here between funding the government and what's going on with the affordable care act. they then find out that, well, we are in a government shutdown. what does that mean for me? i'm sitting near alaska 4,000 miles from washington, d.c.. but then when they learn that fish and wildlife is saying, you can't go out on the refuge to get the moose you're going to need to put in your freezer to make it through the winter. or no, you are the crab fisherman who is waiting to go out to the crab grounds beginning october 15, but the quotas have not yet been determined from within the national marine and fisheries service center yet. so you can't go out. the revenues that the industry might be able to derive, about $7 million from the sale of great king crab that we would all love -- great market out there -- but they're going to not be able to get out in the water because some federal agency 4,000 miles from home hasn't delivered to them the quota. so when we talk about these fiscal cliffs, it's not just waiting for us to hit a debt limit. it's what is happening with this government shutdown. so what they're asking me, and i know each of every one of us is hearing from our constituents is, "so what's your plan? and, oh, by the way, you better get on it pretty quick because you got my attention now. what's the plan?" and so they see some of the things coming out of the house. the house has these mini efforts to fund a specific section, doesn't go anywhere here. we're told, well, we want to open the whole thing, so if we can't open the whole thing and we can't open a portion of it, nothing happens. nothing happens. so where is the plan? what are we going to do? so i'm pleased to stand with my friend from maine, senator collins, as she has described a plan, which i think is pretty reasonable. i think it is pretty sensible. when you think about those small rational, reasonable steps that might get us to a place where we can stop the madness, if you will, break this impasse, a proposal that would pull back on the medical device tax with an offset so that you're not eroding, you're not undercutting the revenues that would come in for the affordable care act, a six-month extension of the continuing resolution as well as a sequestration with a little bit of flexibility and, oh let's add in some oversight. sounds pretty rational. some would suggest that, well, maybe the president doesn't want to do this because it's a small incursion in his signature bill. well, you know what, mr. president? right now what we need to be thinking about is who we work for. whether it's the crab fisherman twhopts get -- who wants to get in the water and is waiting for us to step it up, whether it is the family in galina who is hopping they're going to be able -- hoping they're going to be able to get their moose before the season closes, whether it's the sushi bar in juneau, whether it is the alaskan family, i got an e-mail from a family, the family has been planning for a year to bring them all together, boyfriends, girlfriends and they are going to do a great hike out in moab for a week. and they're stuck and their family vacation is ruined. this is an amazing one. the keni river happens to proceed through some refuge area. good rainbow fishing out there. when you move through that refuge part you better bring your lines in because we're going to have enforcement action on the river. there are so many stories that we can all attest to, and some of them are horrible. some of them, as senator mccain has indicated, families who are grieving the loss of their loved one, someone who has served this country with honor, being denied death benefits. mr. president, the country expects us to get our act together. and they expect us to do it without delay. and they're not interested in knowing who is going to gain -- which side is going to gain more leverage the further we delay. nobody is winning in this, and i tell my friends, the democrats, you are not winning. and i tell my friends the republicans, we are not winning. the administration is not winning. everybody is losing in this when we cannot come together with a plan, with a resolve to do the job that we are tasked to do, which is basic governing and keeping the government open is basic governing. so whether it's senator collins' plan, whether it is the effort that is yet to be created, as the senator from arizona challenged us, let's start this now. let's not delay any further. because real people, the people that we care for, the people that we are charged to help are hurting right now. this goes beyond mere inconvenience. this is hurt. so let's do what we have pledged to do. let's do what we signed up to do, which is work together. at the end of the day this is not going to be a republican plan or a democrat plan or a senate plan or a house plan. it is going to be a plan that allows us to govern. and with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask to request here, first ask unanimous consent to extend the period of morning business for debate only until 7:00 p.m. and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i want to follow up on the colleagues, some of the senators who have spoken before me. it seems like we've accepted this new normal, that shutting down the operations of the largest enterprise in america is acceptable. i want to concur with my colleague, the senator from alaska, about the real stories and real pain that's taking place because of this government shutdown. and i commend some of my colleagues' comments who when we read these tragic stories, whether it's around n.i.h., around our veterans, around our park service, oh, but that part of the government we want to reoefplt does that mean -- reopen. does that mean, every other aspect of government remains closed until we can find that story? i point to my colleagues stories that were in both "the washington post" and "the new york times" today, a story that we should be celebrating about three american nobel prize winners. well, does that mean we should now reopen the n.s.f. because if the national science foundation isn't funded, there may not be a next generation of american nobel prize winners? we have to bring in a story about some child being hurt because of the food or the meat or the fish wasn't inspected correctly? i've got to tell you i spent a lot longer in business than i have in politics, and i've been involved in a lot of business negotiations. but i've never been involved in a negotiation that says during the negotiation we have to shut down the operation of our business and inflict pain not only upon our employees, but upon the general economy across the board. that is not the way to govern. and i would agree we've talked about stories with federal workers, but i would agree with the senator from alaska, it is also the hotel owners along the skyline drive in our state of virginia, the government contractors who start and stop because they don't understand what government is going to operate. this morning i heard the story of a small business outside a government facility in st. louis. this piecemeal effect, this piecemeal approach to reopening government makes no sense. what might be better, is we hear from some of those folks who want to have this piecemeal effect, what parts of the government should stay closed. this is not the way to operate. we ought to reopen this government, put our people back to work, get this economy going again, and continue the very real conversations we've got to have about getting our fiscal house in order. and what makes this, to me, in the four and a half years i've been in the senate, different than these previous discussions and debates is that we have this, first in my tenure in the senate, government shutdown which disproportionately is hurting virginia and maryland but is literally hurting every community across america. but we have this tragedy, this catastrophe merging now into a deadline that's going to hit us next week where there are certain members of congress who say it's okay if america defaults. i find that stunning. if you look back, there has never been a major industrial country in modern history that has defaulted. as a matter of fact, the last major country to default was argentina back in december of 2001. the aftermath of that default, they had over 100% per an number inflation -- per annum inflation. every family in argentina saw literally 60% of their net worth disappear within a few weeks. america is not argentina. but why would we even get close to that kind of potential economic catastrophe? and has been mentioned already, america holds a record as reserve currency for the world. when crises happen as have happened around the world recently, people and capital flows into the dollar. that's because the dollar and the united states full faith and credit has never been suspect. it's never been a question of whether we're going to honor our commitments. well, mr. president, next week or very shortly after that history is going to be put potentially in jeopardy. and i'm just going to tell you i heard those who say we can prioritize payments. there is no business group in america or no economists that i know of, mostly from the left or right, who believes that somehow america can partially default and prioritize payments. we're going to pay interest, we're going to pay our troops. those of us who served at state levels realize that sometimes our budgets are close to 50% past from the federal government. the presiding officer, the governor from the great state of west virginia, how long before west virginia defaults if america starts prioritizing its stphaeuplts how -- payments? how many detroits would there be all across america if we were to take this type of irresponsible action? and even if there was some possibility that there might be some chance of some logic behind this partial payment scheme, it's never been tried before. no industrial country has ever got this close to a default. why would we take the chance? why would we play russian roulette with only one bullet and two chambers. something that at this moment for our national economy and the world economy can be devastating. so, mr. president, i know we seem to be repeating ourselves on both sides but to me it seems very easy for negotiation. we've got differences. i would say to my colleagues i probably make folks on my side more angry than anyone else on these issues around getting our country's balance sheets in order. i'm anxious to continue those discussions about tax reform, about entitlement reform, about bringing our debt to g.d.p. ratio down. but not only have that kind of negotiation while you've got the government shutdown and the full faith and credit of the united states in jeopardy. let's open the government not just because we hear some tragic story about one component of the government, not just because we need to come and make that case about food inspectors, about national science foundation, about nasa langley where we do aeronautics research, 3,500 people, spaoefrpbl were at work -- seven people were at work last week. china, india, other nation -rs not stopping their research because we can't get our act together. open this government, take off the table the idea that america would default. then i am anxious to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get our country's balance sheet in order. but to continue to hold this economy and these stories of these americans' lives in this limbo is irresponsible beyond words. so, mr. president, i hope that we will go ahead and -- agreeing with my colleagues who have spoken already. let's get this government open. let's take and make sure that we're going to honor and pay our debts, and let's get to the very, very real, important questions of how we get our nation's balance sheet right. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i want to again thank the majority leader for bringing to the attention of this body the tragedy of those servicemen who lost their lives, and the fact that unfortunately they had been notified improperly, i believe, that they will not be -- their families will not be being paid the tax-free death gratuity that they are entitled under law. this is wrong. every member of this body agrees this is wrong. every republican agrees it is wrong, and i am confident every democrat agrees it is wrong as well. and indeed, the way this announcement was made was highly troubling. the department of defense notified our military families via twitter that those service members who die in battle will not be paid their tax-free death gratuities due to the partial federal government shutdown. i think this is yet another pattern that we have seen distressingly from the obama administration of politicizing this shutdown and playing partisan games to maximize the pain that is inflicted on americans. it is part and parcel with the pattern we've seen barricading the world war ii memorial, barricading the parking lot at mount vernon, george washington's home, even though mount vernon is privately operated, barricading the roads leaving mount rushmore, even though they are state roads and not federal roads. and the actions by the department of defense are also contrary to the statute that this body just passed. the military death gratuity is by statute a pay and personnel benefit. and accordingly, it is clearly funded by public law 113-39, the pay our military act that was passed in a bipartisan manner this week. we already acted to prevent this, and unfortunately the defense department is declining to follow that law that we passed. the legislation that this body already passed would immediately act to take the families of those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines whose lives are tragically taken, to take them off the table and say regardless of what happens in a government shutdown, we're going to stand by the men and women fighting for america. and indeed, the house of representatives has to introduce a bipartisan bill to immediately fund death gratuity payments. when that bill is passed, the senate should pass that bill immediately. indeed, the pentagon should abandon this policy to begin with and simply follow the law that was already passed, but if they don't, i call upon all 100 senators to come together to listen to the majority leader who spoke powerfully about the need to stand by our service men and women whose lives are tragically taken, and when the house passes that bill, which i am confident it will do so, with considerable speed, i would call upon every senator to listen to the majority leader's call and to stand with our service men and women. but there is something else we can do right here today to demonstrate that this body doesn't have to be locked in partisan gridlock, to demonstrate that bipartisan cooperation is possible and to demonstrate that our veterans are truly not the subject of partisan dispute but are separate and deserve to be treated fairly, deserve to have the commitments, the promises we made to our veterans honored, and that is this body can stop blocking the legislation that the house of representatives has already passed, bipartisan legislation to fund the v.a., to fund disability payments so that we don't hold them hostage to what's happening in washington. and accordingly, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of h.j. res. 72 making continuing appropriations for veterans' benefits for fiscal year 2014, that the measure be read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, the distinguished senator from texas has stated again what has already been talked about here a lot, and that is a piecemeal approach to funding our government. as do most americans, we democrats support the purpose of this bill to fund the veterans administration, but there is no reason for us to have to choose between this important government function, disease control, n.i.h., highway safety, f.b.i., poor children, workplace safety and protecting the environment. we can do all these things if the house republican leadership would just allow the house to vote on the senate-passed measure and the shutdown. everyone knows the votes are there. our position is simple -- open the government, pay our bills, and then we would be happy to negotiate about anything. we need to end this government shutdown. now, mr. president, first of all, my friend talks about these five families who are in bereavement, and that is an understatement. five sons, husbands, friends were killed over the weekend. providing the funding that my friend requests would not enable d.o.d. to pay death gratuity for the families. 17 members, five over the weekend, we have had others die have given their lives to protect the nation since the shutdown began. 17. this is one example of how the senator from texas' efforts to fund the government on a piecemeal basis doesn't work. if the speaker allowed the house to pass a continuing resolution, they would have the family they need to go to dover, delaware, to receive the remains for the families and pay the death gratuity benefits. the junior senator from texas expresses concern for america's veterans, but his consent request addresses only some of the things that the american people through their government have committed to help our veterans. let me quote from the remarks of the senator from connecticut, senator murphy. he gave these remarks on october 3. here is exactly what he said -- "i would note that i believe the resolution the senator is offering and suggested be passed provides only partial funding for the v.a. there is no funding here to operate the national cemeteries, no funding for the board of veterans appeals, there is no funding for construction of v.a. hospitals and their clinics, there is no funding actually to operate the i.t. system that the entire v.a. needs in order to continue going forward." so, mr. president, there couldn't be a better example of why we are involved in this. why couldn't we just open the government. veterans' benefits have -- our former colleague, former senator from georgia, max cleland, a decorated, disabled american veteran who runs the cemeteries do his job. he can't do that now. let's get it all over with. let's have the n.i.h. go forward. let's have the centers for disease control, the park service. we can't have this piecemeal approach because you wind up with the same situation we now find ourselves. we want to do something for the veterans, but it doesn't take care of much of what the veterans need. so, mr. president, i ask that my friends -- friend's amendment be modified, that the joint resolution as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. this amendment is the text that passed the senate as a clean continuing resolution for the entire government, everything. veterans, their cemeteries, their benefits, everything, and is something that is already over in the house and reportedly has the support of a majority of the members of the house of representatives. so i would ask my friend to really surprise the world, surprise the country and let's say i agree, modify it. let's fund the government. and then, mr. president, as we have said, i have said, everyone listen. we're happy when the government is open, when we can pay our bills to sit down and talk about anything they want to talk about. it doesn't matter. no restrictions. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i would ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and i be able to engage in a colloquy so that we may perhaps be able to, as the majority leader said, surprise the world by finding some avenues of bipartisan cooperation. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, i am happy to sit down and talk to the senator, his office or my office. the point we have right here today is that we need the government open, and with all due respect to my friend, the junior senator from texas, i want to say this in a most respectful way, he and i, with a dialogue here on the senate floor, we're not going to work this out. i have asked that the senate open so that everyone can have benefits. the veterans measure that he proposes leaves many veterans out in the cold, out in the cold, including the families of 17 of our servicemen, families who were killed since this came into effect, since this shutdown. so, mr. president, we will go, as we have -- i object to his proposal. i assume he will object to mine, and then we'll go through the ten minutes per person and see what happens later today. but i do -- i'm happy to sit down and talk to the president in my office, his office, anyplace he suggests, privately or publicly. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president, was there -- the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his request? mr. cruz: just for clarification, was there objection to the request that we be able to engage in a colloquy? i wasn't clear to what the majority leader was objecting. the presiding officer: the senator is correct on that. back to the normal order of ten minutes on each side. is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: well, mr. president, reserving the right to object, i will note with regret that the majority leader objected to engaging in a discussion to engaging in negotiations here on the senate floor. i think that is unfortunate. so i will promulgate the questions that i would have asked him directly, and he may choose whether or not he wishes to answer them. the majority leader read from comments that senator murphy made on the senate floor suggesting that the house bill funding the v.a. was not broad enough. i would note in my office we have drafted legislation that would fund the v.a. in its entirety, and if his objection is it is not broad enough, i will readily offer that i would happily work with the majority leader to fund every bit of the v.a. as it is right now today, and we could introduce that bill. indeed, i would be happy to have it labeled the reid-cruz bill and to give lead authorship to the majority leader. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. durbin: would the senator be willing to take care of the 565,000 veterans who are federal employees, many of whom have now been furloughed? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from illinois for that question, and indeed i enthusiastically support the proposal that the house unanimously passed to give back pay to federal workers, and indeed i would ask a question of the minority -- assistant minority leader whether the senate will even vote on that proposal, because there are eight bills funding the federal government that are sitting on the majority leader's desk, and we have not been allowed to vote on any of them. mr. durbin: if the senator from texas is asking me a question, i would respond through the chair that we have given the senator from texas ample opportunity to completely fund the government, including all of the veterans who work for the federal government and all of the functions of the federal government so we don't run into the embarrassment of these poor families in their bereavement being denied most basic benefits that our government gives. he has a chance to do that over and over again, and i believe he has declined that opportunity. so he bears some responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances we face. mr. cruz: and, mr. president, i would note the fact that there are some issues on which we have partisan disagreements does not mean there are not other issues on which we can come together. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question. ms. stabenow: i'm wondering if your motion includes the full funding of the v.a. medical system which is a completely government-run, government-controlled health care system. mr. cruz: i thank my friend for that question. as i said, i would readily support legislation fully funding the v.a. because the v.a. is a vital government system, it is a promise we have made and it is unrelated to obamacare. and my principal complaint this past week has been that the democratic majority in this body is holding programs unrelated to obamacare hostage in order to force obamacare on everyone we agreed for active duty military. ms. stabenow: just so i am clear, if i might, just to clarify so that i understand, because the senator from texas has, in fact, made the ending of a private-sector competitive health care system for up to 30 million americans part of what he wants to stop, i just wanted to be clear that the fully government-funded, government-run, with government doctors system through the veterans administration is something that you are advocating that we continue to fund through the federal government? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from michigan for that question and the answer is again, yes, i believe we should fully fund the v.a. the two questions i would promulgate --. a senator: regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: by note the majority leader seems not to want to engage in debate so i object and i hope that --. mr. reid: regular order. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the original request. is there objection to the modified request? mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: using leader time we have a number of peek wishing to speak and they should be able to do that. but i say as nicely as i can, the problem we have here is what people are saying, like my friend from texas. little bits and pieces of government. it won't work. we've got to open the government. so, mr. president, until that happens, we have to open the government, we have to make sure that we can pay our debts and then we'll negotiate, i know he is fixed on obamacare obamacare, we know that but the problem is, mr. president, that that's not going to change and so i would hope that we can do what needs to be done, open the government, make sure that we pay our bills and then we negotiate. so i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i want to join most of my colleagues that have talked about the urgency of us getting government open. it's causing great harm to our country. make no mistake about it, it's hurting our economy and i could talk about my own state of maryland, our governor has estimated we're losing $15 million every day so every day is precious. i could talk over 100,000 federal workers in maryland who are furloughed out of the 800,000 nationally, having a huge impact on our economy. this morning senator boxer held the news briefing where we talked about the impact, the environmental protection agency where 93% of its employees have been furloughed. we can talk about the direct impact of those employees not being there. there is a representative from the ding darling refuge in florida saying not only did it hurt the local economy directly, but she talked about one of the contract services that are provide -- that provide the touring service to the refuge had to lay off 20-some employees employs. so there's private-sector jobs that are directly being lost as a result of this furlough, and it's going to be very difficult to get back that loss in our economy, the longer the government shutdown lasts. it's wasteful to the taxpayers. the last shutdown cost the taxpayers $2 billion. here we talk about conservatives who want to do something about the national debt and they're wasting taxpayer dollars but keeping government closed and yes, it is hurting our federal work force. i join with senator mikulski in the comments she made a little bit earlier. our federal work force has had to endure freezes in salaries, furloughs as a result of sequestration, freezes in the number of employees that could be hired.org more work with less and now furloughs again under a government shutdown and those who are working don't though when they're going to get paid. it is not what we should be doing to our federal work force. they have suffered and this is wrong and it is totally avoidable. the furloughs that the environmental protection agency is jeopardizing our public health. we had experts come in today and talk about the fact that we don't have the people on guard to protect our waters, to protect our air, to protect our environment. it's jeopardizing public health, it's jeopardizing our environment. we had -- i mentioned this morning and let me mention again, the blackwater national wildlife refuge in maryland on the eastern shore of maryland in cambridge. this is a community in which that refuge is a huge part of their economy. this is a popular month for visitors to visit blackwater. well, the local businesses are hurting. the restaurants have less customers, the hotels less rooms are being rented and it goes on and on and on, the damage to our economy. harbor point is one of the most important economic developments in downtown baltimore. it's a rcraside site, requires the environmental protection agency to sign off on the development plan. well, we have a development plan, the city council is acting, we're read ready to move forward but guess what, we can't get e.p.a. to sign off on it because the people responsible are now on furlough. that's holding up economic growth and development in baltimore. that's what this is doing. it's harming us. an area of maryland farmers in the chesapeake bay, maryland farmers are doing what's right to try to help our bay. they depend upon the protections of the programs that are out there on soil conservation. the senator from michigan knows how hard she's been working on the agricultural bill to provide the tools that are necessary to help our farmers be responsible farmers on land conservation. i received a call from a farmer near centerville, maryland on monday that sums up pretty well how the natural resources conservation service is to their work. this person is enrolled in the conservation stewardship program, the c.s.p. that means that he is planting bumper crops in an effort to help us deal with the runoff issues of pesticides and insecticides into the bay helping us and helping the day, by the way. now, that -- receives certain payments as a result of that participation in the program. he no longer is getting those payments. now, we're asking him to make sacrifices but we're not giving him the federal partnership. that's not right. he is hurt. he said what am i supposed to do? am i supposed to continue to do this? he told me he has a son with a medical condition that requires regular clinical eye treatment. he doesn't know whether he can afford that this month and he was helping us with the environment and now what do we do? we back off on what is necessary. mr. president, i could give you many more examples. there's no piecemeal way you can direct each one of those. on our foreign policy issues, i have the honor of chairing the east asia subcommittee of the senate foreign relations committee. well, president obama was supposed to be the headliner at the east asia economic summit this past week. guess who stole the headlines -- president xi of china rather than our president. asia is wondering whether america's open for business. we were missing at the table. that's no way for america to be conducting its business. we need to be open, we need to get government open. so, mr. president, i hear my colleagues, we want to negotiate budget deals, i'm all for that. i think i have a reputation around here people know that i'm interested in getting democrats and republicans together and getting a budget that makes sense to our country, but let me just, if i might, quote from "the baltimore sun" from this this morning. this is an exact quote from "the baltimore sun" about negotiations and how we have to go through negotiations. "passing a clean continuing resolution keeping government fully operating at funding levels the g.o.p. has already endorsed is no compromise, it's status quo. raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession, either. it allows the nation to pay the bills congress has already incurred and prevents the possibility of a government default which would hurt the economy, raise borrowing costs and increase the federal deficit. so when speaker boehner lashes out at president obama for failing to negotiate, one has to ask, what is this thing he describes as negotiations? house republicans are not merely leveraging their political position as some dryly claim, they are threatening to do grievous harm to the global economy and the american public. the gun isn't raised to president obama's head or the senate's. the democrats have no particular stake in passing a continuing resolution or raising the debt ceiling other than keeping public order and doing what any reasonable person expects congress to do. no, the gun is raised at the nation as a whole. that's why descriptions like ransom and hostage are not mere hyperboles, they are as close as the english language gets to accurately describing the g.o.p. strategy." the editorial ends by saying "it's time for mr. boehner to put down the gun and put more faith in the democratic process." mr. president, we need to negotiate a budget for next year, we absolutely need to do it. we've tried to go to budget conference many times, the majority leader has repeated that request -- has repeated that request today. it's not one side getting an advantage over another, the right thing to do is open government, pay our bills, and yes, let us negotiate a budget that will not be what the democrats want and not what the republicans want, we're going to have to compromise. as the framers of our constitution envisioned that we would do. that's what we should have done months ago. we passed our budget in march. we should have been negotiating months ago. but what we need to do right now is open government, pay our bills and yes, then it's right for us to sit down and negotiate and i can tell you we're ready to do that. but it's up to speaker boehner now to vote, to vote on the resolution that will keep government open, to vote on a way that we can make sure that we will continue to pay our bills and then accept our offer to sit down and negotiate a budget for the coming year. that would be the best thing we can do for the american people. i urge my colleagues, to urge the sense of urgency that we move this immediately because of the damage that we're causing to our country. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, there can be no doubt that no one wants to be here. not one member of this body wants to be in shutdown. we all may have different reasons, different explanations as the to why we're here. we might differ with regard to our own beliefs as to how best we should get out of this, but not one of us wants to be here and every one of us recognizes how awful it is to be in a shutdown posture. i'd like to take a few moments and explain my thoughts on both of those two points. i believe that perhaps the single most important reason, the single most indistiewtable -- undisputable reason we're in a shutdown posture, we've been operating on continuing resolutions for several years in a row. a continuing resolution, of course, is a bill, it's a legislative vehicle through which congress may choose to just keep government programs funded at current levels. it's kind of a reset button. it pro tells us forward on the basis of our current spending patterns rather than on the basis of an independently freshly negotiated set of priorities. this is a different way of running government. normally this is reserved for unusual circumstances and it usually doesn't last as long as we've been going this time around, about four and a half years this way. but this causes us to do things in a way that is different than we would otherwise choose to do them. it's certainly very different than the manner in which we would operate any other aspect of our lives. to use one familiar example, let's analogize congress' spending conditions to a consumer going to the grocery store. suppose you went to the grocery store having been informed by your spouse that you need to bring home bread, milk, and eggs. you went to that grocery store and you put bread and milk and eggs in your basket. you go to the checkout counter and place the bread and the milk and the eggs on the counter. the cashier rang you up. the cashier said okay, here's what you owe us for these items but we won't low he allow you to buy just bled bred, milk and eggs. in order to buy these, we require you to purchase half ton of iron ore, a bucket of nails, a book about cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album. of course, anyone being told that would be a little surprised. anyone being told that would be reluctant to shop at that same store in the future. and if another store existed, another alternative, very few if any consumers would continue shopping at that institution. and yet that in some ways is the way that we're asking to spend money here in congress when we're operating on the basis of back-to-back continuing resolutions, just pushing reset on our spending button. keeping federal government, that spends about $3.7 trillion a year, operating on sort of economic autopilot t. woul. it would actually be a little bit more of a close analogy if we changed the hypothetical to a circumstance in which the cashier said not just that you have to buy a half ton of iron ore and a bucket of nails and a book of cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album, but you have to buy one item in every single store in order to buy anything, no eggs, no milk, no breath, no nothing unless you buy one of everything in the entire store. that would bring us a little bit closer to the analogy that we're dealing with here, where we have to choose to fund everything or, alternatively, to fund nothing. neither one of those, it seems to me, is a terribly good solution. neither one of those fairly represents good decision-making practices. we ought to be able to proceed, as past congresses have, historically passing a dozen or so, sometimes more appropriations bills, going through our federal government category by category, debating and discussing each appropriations measure to discuss the contents of that measure to make sure that there is sufficient agreement within this body and within the house of representatives to continue funding the government function in question. we have a new item in the store, so to speak, as we're shopping this year, a new item in the store, an item called obamacare, one that's about to take full effect on january 1, 2014. yes, it's the law of the land but we do have the final choice, the final option, the final authority to choose whether or not to fund that moving forward or, alternatively, to defund it. we can take that out of the grocery cart. it's a new item that's caused a lot of people a lot of concern. a lot of people are fearing and experiencing job loss -- job losses, doubts their wages, having their hours slashed or losing their health care benefits as a result of this law. and they see more of these disturbing trends coming in the near future. and so they're asking for congress to help. they're asking for congress to defund the implementation of this law. now, a lot of people, and many of my colleagues in this body, have responded by saying, yes, but it's the law. well, that's true. it was passed by congress 3 1/2 years ago and signed into law by president obama. it's important to remember two facts about this, however. first of all, the president himself has announced that he's not following the law. he himself says the law's not ready to implement as it's written. he himself has refused to follow it as it's written. secondly, it's not unusual, it's not unheard of by any means to have a law that puts in place one standard, one program and then have a subsequent appropriations decision made by congress, a decision that results in the defunding of that very program. to cite one of many, many examples that we could point to, under federal law, currently there is designated something known as the yucca mountain nuclear waste dpoz to her that. waste depositives to her. for many years, it has been defunded by the congress. that is congress' prerogative. congress holds the power of the purse. congress may decide to do that. it's important also to remember that this was by design that it would work this way. our founding fathers understood and set up the system that it would work this way and they put the power of the purse in the hands of the house of representatives, understanding that thous house woulthatthe hos would act first when acting. james madison acknowledged that in federalist 58. and if i could quote in part, james madison wrote, "the house cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the surprise requisite for the support of government. they in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument by which we hold in the history of the british constitution an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance. and finally reducing as far as it seems to have wished all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the "the "most complete and effect wal wall -- "the" most complete and effect waleffectual weapon of the peop. for retraining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." so we find ourselves now in a position in which the house of representatives is wanting to get government funded again and is acting to keep the government funded on a step-by-step basis starting with those areas as to which there is the most broad-based bipartisan support, those areas of government that have nothing to do with the implementation and enforcement of obamacare. moving step-by-step in this fashion, we can get the government funded again. we should be getting the government funded again. and in many respects, what we've seen over the last week, the conduct from the obama administration during this first week of this shown ma shutdown e as the single-best argument against obamacare. what we've seen is a willingness of this president and his administration to utilize the already vast resources of the federal government to make it hurt, to hurt families, to hurt buys, to hurt those who depend on their access to federal lan lands, the national monuments, national parks, and other federal installations. this itself is evidence of the fact that when you give government too much power, that power may and ultimately will be abused. i want to be clear. this is not a problem that is distinctively democratic. it's not something that belongs uniquely to liberals. this is equally a pre republican problem. republican and democratic administrations in the past and in the future will have chosen although times to abuse power when it sights their interests in order to get their way politically. we need to not give yet another source of power to the federal government, a source of power that intrudes into one of the most personal aspects of human existence. when we give the federal government control of our health care system, we give them control of aspects of our lives that are intensely personal, very intimate, and, frankly, not the business of the federal government. we don't want to give that power to a government that may one day be abused, be used against us for someone's partisan political gain. it's for that reason that we're having this discussion. it's for that reason that we need to keep the government funded. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? officer the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, we are now on day eight of the government shutdown and the pain has been felt by all across the country, by the cancer patients being denied access to new clinical trials at n.i.h., to the mom whose son has muscular dystrophy. his name's jackson and she told me that every day when those researchers aren't working on a cure for her son's disease is a day lost. she said, every day counts. to the small businesses that can't get affordable loans through the s.b.a., through farmers who write me about not being able to get their conservation loans. got a letter here that i road saturday on the floor, "please do whatever you can to stop the government shutdown. we have 14 acres of land enrolled in the conservation reserve program. our rental payment is made to us the first week of october. we depend on this money. it's not a small amount, for our family." kathy from minnesota. "i'm an employee of the social security office. i'm furloughed as part of the government shutdown. if you want your constituents' hearings to be addressed, i need to be at work and in the office." alicia from hastings, minnesota, "i'm writing to express my extreme concern over the federal government shutdown. i'm a teacher, a mother of three boys and a wife of a furloughed veteran who works for the minnesota air national guard. i've never before written a letter to my representatives but feel so yo utterly helpless and frustrated at this time i need to voice my concern. at this point in time, my husband, who is a veteran, is out of work because he's a federal employee not deemed essential. i'm afraid that not only are the other 800,000 laid-off federal employees deemed not essential but the rest of the american citizens are nonessential as well." she goes on to say, "our struggles are real-life struggles, not philosophical, not distant and not imaginary. my hopes is that these struggles and hardships matter to you." "this is your duty, this is your charge, this is your enormous task. shutting down government is not a responsible action." that's what we're hearing from the people in my state, the people all over the country. it's time to end the shutdown and i will continue to urge my colleagues in the house to do the right thing and pass the straightforward bill that the senate passed on september 27 that would get the government back to work, get those employees back to their jobs. it's great that the house passed a bill to pay them. that's a good thing. but now they are paying them to stay home. they are paying them to not do their job. they want to come back to work. but as you know, madam preside madam president, we are now facing another critical deadli deadline, the deadline for paying our bills or facing default. next thursday, on october 17, our country will hit its legal borrowing limit. and when that happens, we will be asked to do what congress has routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years and that's pay our country's bills. let me be clear, this is about making good on commitments we've already made. this is about doing what regular americans do every month when their pay their credit card bills. and yet lately we've heard voices from the other side, from a number of people who seem to think this is just no big deal. just the other day, republican congressman jordan nomination barton of texas said -- quote -- "some bills have to be paid and some bills we can defer and only pay partially, but that doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in." then there was dan mitchell, a serve active fellow at the conservative cato institute who said -- quote -- "there's no need to fret." no need to fret? that is not what history teaches us. as chair on the senate side of the joint economic committee, i had a hearing a few weeks ago about the cost of this brinksmanship, about what happens if we go over that cliff, if we let our bills go, if we don't pay them. let's turn back to 2011. we have a very clear lesson of what happens. when the mere prospect of a default sends shot waves through our economy. a recently released report examining the fallout of that brinksmanship, the results were ugly. the dow jones plummeted more than 2,000 points, our credit rating was downgraded, and $2.4 trillion in american household wealth was wiped away. now, i think it's important for every one to remember that in 2011, all of this happened before we averted default. treasury secretary sent a letter to congress about the looming debt ceiling starting on january 26, 2011. on may 2, he announced that the debt limit would be reached on august 2. that was the magic day, august 2. now we have people who are saying, well, maybe it's not october 17. they were saying that back then. but you know what happened on the lead-up to august 2? on january 14, standard & poor's warned that it may downgrade the u.s. credit rating. they followed through on that. they downgraded it after the magic day of august 2, but it was two weeks before that they warned that they might do it. what happened then well, over late july and early august leading up to the date the dow jones dropped more than 2,000 points.so the next time someone says there's no need to fret over playing games with the debt ceiling, tell them to talk to the families whose retirement plans took a hit. make no mistake, this brinksmanship has very real consequences for our economy. we can't afford to go down this path again because this time around the fall could be so much harder. our joint economic committee analysis indicates that rates could rise everything on from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses. at a time when our economy is finally turning a corner, this would put a real strain on families and small business owners. but don't take my word for it. secretary lew said that extraordinary measures will be exhaust bide mid-october. already our government is not matching the retirement funds that federal workers put in. already they are not issuing some of the municipal bonds. already they are not making some of the typical investments they would normally make. and the business community -- and my friends on the other side of the aisle thn -- is know this overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of america not paying its bill, including the c.e.o. of at&t,ages stevenson, who said -- quote -- "it is unthinkable that the u.s. could default and it would be the height of irresponsibility for a public official to consider such a course." our country, madam president, cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. it's time for both parties to focus real solutions that get the government back to work in the short term so that we can focus responsibly reducing our deficit in the long term. i supported the work of the gang of eight, the work that was being done by the domenici-rivlin comirks the work that was being done by the debt commission. i was one of 14 senators that pushed for that work to be done and i think it is a great basis. i don't agree with everything in it, but it is a good start for how we can negotiate a major deal. we can dmot that in the next -- we cannot do that in the next tiefew days. that's why the senate proposal is six weeks. six weeks to allow the government to open up so we can negotiate the kind of long-term deal we should. we need to be forward-looking, madam president. we need to be forward-looking enough to recognize that the decisions we make staid today go far beyond the next election cycle. they will be felt by generations to come, and we have a responsibility to get things rievmenright. we can't allow our country to go over the brink. it is not the american way. in a 1987 address to the american people, president ronald reagan said when he was talking about the debt ceiling and the need to pay our bills, he said, "the united states has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. it means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility, two things that set us apart from much of the world." i urge my colleagues to take these words seriously, to join me in ensuring that congress acts responsibly and in the best interests of this country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. skilled that the ten minutes shall -- i would ask that ten minutes be divided between myself and senator cornyn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. i'm sorry, is there objection? ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i just quante wanted to clarifyk if we might expand to indicate the order we've agreed to on the floor after our two colleagues, that i would be allowed to speak after my two distinguished colleagues and then senator whitehouse and then senator coburn. the presiding officer: will the senator modify her request? ms. ayotte: absolutely, i would modify my request to reflect when the senior senator from michigan said. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you. thank you, madam president. i rise today -- i think it is time for us to end this government shutdown. and here's where we are: i said on the floor twice last week and prior to that that i didn't think that the strategy of defunding obamacare was a strategy that would be successful, and while i support repealing and replacing obamacare, because i have seen the negative impact p in my own state of new hampshire, we've already seen the government has shut down and yet the obamacare exchanges have opened, showing the many problems with those exchanges, with the computer system, what are called glitches, but are major flaws at this point. so where we find ourselves, it is time for both sides to come together and resolve this on behalf of the american people. i've seen in my home state of new hampshire not only what was discussed earlier on the floor today -- let me just say that it is appalling that we have soldiers that have been killed in the line of duty and their families aren't receiving death benefits. it is wrong. it is outrageous. we need to solve that right away. but we need to solve this overall government shutdown. in new hampshire we have private campgrounds that contract with the white mountain national forest that are be closed despite the thact that they actually -- despite the fact that they actually bring revenue into the government. i think the administration is playing games with things like that and that they should open up those campgrounds. but ultimately we have to tbet this government open. and i want to praise my colleague from maine, senator collins, who came to the floor earlier today, the senior senator from maine, with an idea that she has drawn from other senators not only in this chamber but in the house of representatives of a way that we could resolve this impasse, and that is taking something that we have already voted on in this chamber on the budget resolution. there was a vote in this chamber on the medical device tax repeal, and that vote got on the budget resolution 79-20. we voted on a bipartisan basis that we should repeal this tax. i've been against this tax since i campaigned, because in new hampshire the impact on our companies, we coo that it's going to -- we see that it's going to increase medical costs, many companies in new hampshire are negatively impacted by this tax and their workers are nut a difficult place when these companies can't expand or they have to reduce their workforce because of this onerous tax, which by the way is a tax on revenue, 2.3% tax on ref new york a tax on innovation and new ideas in health care rather than a tax on profit. but ultimately we should repeal this tax. it is wrong. so i want to support what my colleague from maine came to the floor on today as something we should take up and discuss in this chamber, a repeal of the medical device tax with a pay-for, a c.r. proposed for a longer period of time. she has proposed six months. within the budget control act numbers and flexibility for the agencies to address the sequester in the way that is best and most sensible for the american people. so i want to thank my colleague from maine. we can come together and resolve this, and i hope that members on the other side of the aisle that voted for the medical device tax repeal, that we can work together along with members of the house of representatives, that we can work this out, get the government open, and also address concerns that we have with obamacare that is impacting an industry that's an important descrirks the medical device industry, that provides innovation and important lifesaving diswieses for people in this country. thank you, madam president. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the sphoer from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, four times the house of representatives has sent over continuing resolutions with various additions for consideration in the united states senate. each time senator reid has tabled those provisions, shutting them down without giving them a vote. the last time i believe senator reid really led his colleagues down a very treacherous path because the provisions of this otherwise clean c.r. would have repealed the provision that carves out congress and members of of our staff and gives us preferential treatment under obamacare. the second part of it has to do with delaying the penalties on individuals, just like the president has done in delaying the penalties on employers unilaterally. there is no good reason for us not to pass both of those provisions. but instead of trying to deal constructively with the house of representatives, which has sent four separate bills over here on the continuing resolution, the majority leader has chosen to stiff-arm each of those efforts. and so when the majority leader comes to the floor and he bemoans the government shutdown, something that we all agree we should try our best to avoid, he claims that they are willing to negotiate and that the president is willing to negotiate a change in the outcome. but we know that's not true. we know that each time they have shut out republican proposals from the house of representatives that would open the federal government back up with reasonable bipartisan agreements. but what really is beyond belief is when i hear our colleagues come to the floor and they say, why can't we have cancer research for children at n.i.h. continue? and we come to the floor, we offer bills that would open up that funding at the national institutes of health any, that very same cancer research, and they're objected to by the democratic side of the aisle. i don't know any other word to describe it other than hypocrisy. and then we read in the newspaper -- this morning "the washington post" talks about the case of michelle landbem, who was diagnosed with sarcoma. she is from california, who is unable to get an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial at n.i.h. this is the very same sort of program that would have been funded by the bill that we offered on this side. aisle and that was -- on this side of the aisle and that was objected to by the majority leader and the democratic side. there is one bright spot of agreement. that is, we were able to agree unanimously to pass the house tbhail funded our troops -- to that is the house bill that funded our troops. that's good. but the bad news is that this has more offe morpheda debate on the debt ceiling. what the majority leader and this side of the aisle is apparently proposing is that without making any arrangements to pay for the $17 trillion in debt that have already been accumulated, they want another clean debt ceiling increase and the president says he won't negotiate about that. but we'll be voting in all likelihood later this week on another trillion dollars added to our maxed-out credit card, without doing anything whatsoever to take care of the debt that's already been incurred. now, that is just fundamentally irresponsible. that's not me saying it. the american people have said this. the congressional budget office has said this. the president's own fiscal bipartisan commission has said that. one recent poll from nbc/"wall street journal" when people are given the choice between raising the debt ceiling or not raising the debt ceiling, 44% said don't raise the debt ceiling. 22% said raise the debt ceiling. i realize we have more choices than that. there could be coupled together with the raising of the debt ceiling some real reforms of our broken entitlement programs, to shore up social security and medicare. but our colleagues and the president of the united states himself has said, no, i'm not going to negotiate. no, i want a clean debt ceiling. no, i want the freedom to max out the credit card another trillion dollars without doing anything to pay off the debt that threatens our country, not only our future prosperity but our national security. i remember very clearly admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when he was asked what the greatest national security threat to the united states there was, and he said, "the national debt." why would our colleagues -- why would the president of the united states -- ignore what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff called the most significant national security throat our quun by saying, we're not interested in any real estate forms, we're not interested in anything that would actually pay down the debt and remove that threat to our national security and our future prosperity, why would they want to say, no, we want to keep on spending money, money we don't actually have, continuing to borrow from our creditors like china and other foreign countries that hold a majority of our national debt. and you know what would happen and what will happen when interest rates start to tick back up again as the federal reserve starts to taper its purchase of our own debt. we're going to see more of our national expenditures go to paying interest on that debt, crowding out not only national security but the safety net programs for people in our country. madam president, i would yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. first let me apologize for the hoarse voice, as i have been recovering from a cold. but it's important for me to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of michigan and to speak about what is happening, as everyone at home is scratching their head trying to figure out why in the world, in the greatest country in the world, we have seen government services now shut down and why there are those that think it's all right for us not to pay our bills and default the full faith and credit of the united states of america and why folks aren't willing to just, in fact, open the government, pay our bills, and then negotiate. and, in fact, we have been negotiating. we've negotiated on a lot of things, i'm proud to say we negotiated a success bipartisan farm bill not long ago. that's the real deficit reduction proposal that's actually passed the united states senate with over two-thirds votes. so we certainly are willing to negotiate. our leader, senator reid, was willing to negotiate and in fact did negotiate with the speaker of the house, as we all know. the speaker called him in september and indicated that he would like to see a six-week extension of the current funding levels for the government while we were negotiating something more broadly on a budget. it was at a funding level that we don't believe is the right one in terms of investing in education, innovation, and creating jobs. but it was six weeks, and our leader said, after talking with all of us, that in the interest of negotiating and compromising that we would be willing do that. and so, as we know from republican colleagues now in the house who said that was the intent, and unfortunately, the speaker could not follow through on what he had negotiated, the agreement he had negotiated because of a minority of a minority in the house that's extremely intent and in fact has successfully achieved one of the goals they ran on, which is to shut the government down. but we have negotiated. we also negotiated on the big picture. we know a few years ago with the simpson-bowles commission, with others, that $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years was picked as an important goal to be able to right size and bring down our long-term debt. the good news is that not only have we cut the annual deficit in half, but of that $4 trillion, we've already agreed to $2.5 interest of that in deficit reduction over the next ten years. over half of that has already been achieved. when my friends on the other side of the aisle act as if nothing is happening, i first have to say the deficit has been cut in half. and secondly, that over half of our long-term goal on the debt has been achieved. and we need to keep going. now, we don't need to shut the government down to do that. we don't need to default on our debts of the greatest country in the world to do that. we need to just work together to do that, which is why we would say that we just need to open the government, pay our bills and continue to negotiate. let's negotiate. but it is a continuation of negotiating. because in fact weakening the full faith and credit of the united states of america -- think about that. the greatest country in the world. the full faith and credit of the united states of america, that's been the highest standard in the world when you say the full faith and credit of the united states of america. and right now there are folks playing russian roulette with that who are willing to weaken that and undermine our recovery, if not take us over another horrible economic cliff and cost billions of dollars, billions of dollars for american consumers. now given the seriousness of this and the fact that we're very, very close to having that happen and the fact that we are the world's leader, 30 years ago president ronald reagan warned about the consequences of the richest, most powerful nation in the world suddenly running out of money to pay its bills. and he said the full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of a default, like people are flippantly discussing these days, by the united states of america are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. he went on to say, "denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states of america would cause inincalculable damage." this is president ronald reagan. president reagan reminded congress never before in our history has the federal government failed to meet its financial obligations. to fail to do so now would be an outrage. his words. the congress must understand this and bear full responsibility. we know that if the united states defaults on its obligations, if we don't pay our bills, the result will be a financial crisis worse than what we went through in 2008. frankly, madam president, i don't want any part of that. i know it happened in michigan in 2008, 2009. i know our presiding officer, the distinguished senator from massachusetts, understands that as well, what happened to families and businesses all across america, to even come close to that is irresponsible. at that time 57.5 million americans -- or excuse me. if that were to happen, 57.5 million americans could very well lose their social security checks on time. my mom called the other night. 87 years old, doing great. and she said i was at church on sunday, and my friends were saying that couldn't really happen, could it? i didn't know what to tell her. i said, no, mom, it shouldn't happen. it's not happened before. but i can't promise, given the words of people who believe it's no big deal on the other side of the aisle or of what's being said by the speaker and by the tea party republicans in the house, i couldn't absolutely say to her don't worry about that. 3.4 million veterans might not get their disability benefits on time. we've just been debating whether or not we should make sure, as we must, that the v.a. is fully funded. and yet, next week if we don't back up the full faith and credit of the united states of america, veterans could very easily be in a situation of not getting disability checks. seniors' social security, medicare, children, families, communities, businesses, farmers, that's who will pay the cost of this default. middle-class families will pay the cost of this. it will be catastrophic in terms of interest rate increases and loss of jobs if we do not stand together as republicans and democrats in the congress of the united states and back up the full faith and credit of the united states of america. according to goldman sachs, if we adopt the china first model of only paying the interest on our debt, which has been proposed by the house, where we pay some of our debts but not others, the drag on our economy would be massive. they estimate we would lose 4.2% of our gross domestic product. taopbd put that in per speck -- and to put that in perspective, when the recession hit bottom in 2009, we lost 4.1% of g.d.p. from the peak in 2007. and that was the worst recession in our lifetime. this is not a game. this is serious. even more concerning to me is that this would drive up borrowing costs for families, for small businesses, four our manufacturers that are back on their feet now and roaring and bringing back our economy. for every 1% increase in interest rates, we're told americans will pay $75 billion. $75 billion lost to the economy. when republicans in the house took us to the brink of default two years ago, which resulted in the lowering of america's credit rating for the first time in history, even though we didn't default, just talk of default ended up lowering our credit rating for the first time in america's history. it cost the average family buying a home at the time about $100 every month for the life of their mortgage in higher interest rates. $100 a month for the life of the mortgage. that's outrageous and irresponsible. that same default crisis in 2011 cost taxpayers $19 billion in additional interest when our credit rating fell and interest rates went up. and where did that $19 billion go? right back on top of the national debt. and not only is it adding to the national debt, it threatens to erase america's retirement savings. in 2011, over $800 billion was lost in retirement accounts after the house republicans played politics with the full faith and credit of the united states of america. if i might take stkwruft one more -- take just one minute? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: this time if we actually default the fall would be worse and the damage could be permanent. madam president, this is the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, and it's outrageous that this would even be considered. i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from the national association of manufacturers expressing their deep concern about the possibility of default. and i would just share finally -- the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: "the chairman of at&t. it is unthinkable the united states could default on its financial obligations and it would be the height of irresponsibility for any public official to consider such a course. our country deserves better. the people of this country deserve better. and we've got to do better for them. i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm glad to join this debate which throughout the afternoon has been peppered with the assertion that either majority leader reid or the president or democrats in general will not negotiate, that we will not negotiate. i remember when i was younger there was a radio commentator, a man named paul harvey. and his little motto in his radio bits was to surprise you with the rest of the story. well, will not negotiate, you don't even have to go to the rest of the story. go to the rest of the sentence. the rest of the sentence is that the president and the majority leader will not negotiate while the other side is holding hostages. while the tea party is holding hostages. here is what our former colleague, my former ranking member on the budget committee, senator judd gregg, has said about this. "a small group of republican legislators led by the junior senator from texas decided to take as hostages government operations and the raising of the debt ceiling." well, those are exactly the hostages. federal employees who can't work, people and businesses who want or need federal services, those families we've heard so much about today who lost loved ones on the field of battle and can't get their death benefits. and there's an even bigger hostage out there, which is the threat of a catastrophic default, which would be the result of a failure to lift the debt limit. our country's been through a lot, madam president, through civil wars and world wars, through depressions and calamities of various kinds; through all of that we have never defaulted on our debt. but there is a group in congress so desperate that they're willing to use that, that threat as a hostage for leverage in negotiations. so when colleagues on the other side invite us in the old phrase, come let us reason together, let us negotiate, they don't mean come let us reason together, let us negotiate. they mean let us negotiate, but we want a blackjack in our pocket. if the negotiations don't go just the way we want, we want to keep hundreds of thousands of americans out of their jobs, and we want to threaten the economic security of this country. madam president, there is a difference. there is a difference that every american understands between negotiating and negotiating while threatening the hostages. and i will say that sanctimoniously offering to release a hostage here or a hostage there when a program becomes too popular or there's too much scrutiny on the damage that one thing is doing, you say, we'll give that hostage up. we'll let us vote on that hostage; doesn't change the principle. there is a difference between negotiating in good faith, negotiating on the merits and negotiating with threats to hostages. that is no road to go down. that is a very dangerous threat. as president reagan warned us, congress must realize that by failing to act, they're entering very dangerous territory if we don't raise the debt limit. never before in our history has the federal government failed to honor its financial obligations. to fail to do so now would be an outrage. ronald reagan. the congress must understand this and bear full responsibility. we have to address these problems in the traditional order of government with real negotiations. because if we don't, if we yield to hostage taking as the new way of governance in this country, where does it end? the continuing resolution that we proposed that the speaker has refused to have a vote on -- and all this time he's never had a vote on the continuing resolution that we passed that would open up the government -- it would only extend the operations of government for six weeks. we'd be back at it again. what would the price be next time, after we defunded obamacare, would they want to privatize social security? they tried that before. over and over again the popular will has to rule, and that we do through our american procedures. the vaunted procedures of our american system of government would be lost in a devil's game of threats and hostage taking on both sides, because two can play at this game if those are the new rules. we don't want to go there. america is a great country, and in part we are a great country because our democracy is an example to the world. we are no example to anyone when we legislate by threats of default, disaster and confusion, to use the phrase of our colleagues from alabama. there is a condition that sometimes befalls pilots called target fixation. it happens when a pilot diving on a target becomes so fixateed on hitting that target that they become disoriented to their surroundings, and the worst thing that befalls somebody who is the victim of target fixation is that they crash the plane. well, we right now have republican target fixation on repeal obamacare. imagine passing it 40 times in the house, 40-some times which they have done. if that's not a sign of target fixation, i don't know what is. not seeing the damage that is being done by closing down the government, not seeing the damage to families, not seeing the damage to employees, not seeing the damages to people who depend on government services and licenses and safety checks, not seeing any of that, that seems to me to be a sign of target fixation. if they have got target fixation this badly, they may not actually see even president ronald reagan's warnings about how dire and dangerous it is to play around with our debt limit. they are already on the house side talking about playing around with our debt limit. they want to go into the danger zone, and who knows how close to the flame they're willing to fly? when they have target fixation, their judgment isn't very good. and they are certainly not seeing the damage to american values and american procedure that an insistence on legislating by holding hostages and threatening them does. it does damage to our values. it does damage to our procedures. a great observer of the american system of government once described procedure as a bone structure. we can throw it all out, the constitution, bicameralism. we can just go back to the basic animal state that whoever can make the worst threat wins the argument. that's not the american way. the american way isn't to win the argument by seeing how many people you can put at risk and how badly you can threaten them, but that is the stage that we are in right now. so let's negotiate indeed but let's negotiate as americans. let's negotiate under our proper procedures. let's open the government. there's no reason for it to be closed other than bargaining leverage, other than hostage taking. there is no other reason. that's exactly why the tea party has shut down the government, just for that purpose. if you listen, they say it. they use nicer words. i think the word that was used earlier in the debate today was to create adequate incentive. when somebody else is holding hostages, we have incentive, but it's not appropriate incentive. so open the government and stop threatening the debt limit. that is wildly irresponsible. don't believe us. believe ronald reagan. leave the secretary of the treasury. believe the national association of manufacturers. believe the c.e.o. of at&t. believe virtually every responsible, knowledgeable adult who has observed what the dangers are of blowing the debt limit and default. open the government. stop threatening the debt limit, and by all means let's negotiate. we could set a date tomorrow. i'm sure the president will have a meeting at the white house the next day. anything people wanted could be on the table, but they would have to come in and negotiate like americans, on the merits and fairly and not with a blackjack in their back pocket with threats that if they don't go and get what they want, they're going to go out and start wrecking things, like our economy and our government. that's not the right way to proceed, and if we go down that road, who knows what evil lurks at the end. i yield the floor. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i have listened very carefully to previous speakers on the floor. i understand a lot of their frustration. we are where we are. i think we have two big problems. actually, we have two major problems. one is is our country is bankrupt. people don't like to hear that, but let me give you what the facts are. the total unfunded liabilities of the united states of america is $126 trillion. if you add up all the net worth of everybody in the country and all the assets of the federal government and all the assets of the state and you combine them, we have $94 trillion worth of assets. we're already in the hole $30 trillion. that doesn't include the $17 trillion in debt that we have. so i'd like to correct a couple of things. one, the senator from michigan mentioned that we were downgraded because of the impasse in congress. no, we got downgraded because congress has failed to address the real problems of our debt and deficits. go read their statement. it had nothing to do with action here. it had to do with the fact that we will not address the biggest problems in front of us. and i just for a minute would like for us to consider, i ask unanimous consent to have some scissors on the floor because i want to make a point in a minute. the presiding officer: is there okay? without objection. mr. coburn: we have a credit card. and i want you to think about your own personal life, that if, in fact, you have a limit on your credit card and your financial situation worsens, you're still paying the payments but you're not bringing down the principal on your credit cards and you're not earning any more money significantly and you go ask citibank or american express or chase and you say i want you to raise my limit, do you know the first thing they are going to ask you is what have you done to improve your financial situation so that we might consider raising your credit limit? that's what happens to every other american. and we have this big talk about a debt limit. there's no debt limit in this country. we've increased it every time it's come up. there is no limit right now in this country on the debt that we have. so we hear all these speeches about the risk. do you know what the real risk is? the risk is continuing to do nothing to address the underlying problems of our country. the risk is to continue to add entitlement programs that have no way to pay for themselves and no reform of the entitlements that we have today, that's the risk. how does that play out? we have heard all these dire warnings of what's going to happen. here is what's going to happen to your children and grandchildren. what has happened over the last 15 years in this country. do you realize the average median family income in real dollars now is at the same level it was in 1989? we're going backwards right now. not addressing the real problems. and let me put it in medical terms since i'm a doctor. if, in fact, you treat symptoms of disease, raising the debt limit, rather than treating the real disease, which is reforming the problems, reforming our spending, quit having 100% involvement in everything americans do from the federal government, if you continue to borrow the money and treat that as the symptom when spending, the lack of oversight by congress, the lack of real work by the members of this body to actually eliminate waste, which is over $250 billion a year, as outlined by the government accountability office. and yet we ignore that with the political arena that we have seen the last couple of weeks in washington. the real disease is not fixing the real problem, and if all the politicians, republicans and democrats alike, we want to give you a soft answer. well, here's the answer. if you're $30 trillion in debt that you can't pay for, what you have to do is have everybody have some pain. and we have refused to do that. there's no leadership in congress to address the real disease that we're facing. a government that's totally ignored the enumerated powers. a government that totally ignores the tenth amendment. and now a justice department that completely ignores the rule of law, in terms of how they decide what they will enforce and what they won't, always on a political basis rather than on what the law says. those are the real problems in front of us. and so we hear all the dire warnings about oh, you can't not raise the debt limit. well, what does default mean, because they always say you can't raise the debt limit, but they won't talk about what default means. default in the international financial community is you won't pay the interest and you won't pay back the principal on your bond. that won't ever happen to us. it will require less than 6% of the cash that we have right now to manage the debt that we have right now, less than 6%. so only somebody who wants to hurt us further would play the political game if we ever got there -- and i'm not saying we should get there, but if we ever got there would only play the political game to not pay social security or not pay medicare or not take care, we have more than enough money to do that. but what we have is a bloated, oversize, inefficient, ineffective federal government that nobody wants to hold accountable except the american people. so the question is is who gets to decide? congress obviously isn't deciding very well. the president hadn't shown any leadership on it. maybe it's time for the american people to decide. maybe it's time to take some of the power away from washington and restore it where our founders thought it should reside, by respecting the enumerated powers very specifically listed by our founders with very great commentaries so it wouldn't be distorted but we have distorted it anyway, and reembracing the tenth amendment, which says everything that's not specifically enumerated in these powers is left to the power of the people and the states. so we find ourselves with a credit card. this happens to be our debt, the number i chose to put on here was our debt this morning, morning, $16.74 trillion. we need to cut this up, just like you do for an adolescent or young adult kid that you're responsible for the credit card. if they are not responsible, you cut up the credit card. you fix the real problem. you don't continue asking for an increase in their profligate spending. you don't continue to reward members of congress who won't do oversight and get rid of a quarter trillion dollars worth of fraud, waste and abuse every year. but that's what we'll end up doing because we don't have the courage nor the leadership to address what is the real problem in front of our country, and the real problem is cowardice. the real problem is to not recognize where we are and not act on making decisive decisions. now, we heard how bad it will be if we don't raise the debt limit. i agree it's going to be tough. there will be ramifications. how bad will it be if we do? what happens to your children? what happens to the family income in this country if we do, if we continue to let the federal government run out of control, if we continue to not old congress accountable for forcing efficiencies on the federal government? you know it can be done. there was an agreement called the budget control act. and what it did is it forced sequester. sequester is a stupid way to cut funding in the federal government, but it's far better than not cutting it at all, and what has sequester done? sequester has forced agencies because congress won't force them because we're afraid we might offend somebody. it has forced agencies to start making choices. now, they are still making tons of bad choices like the state department on the last day of their budget spend all the remaining money. they just spent $500,000 -- no, it was $5 million, pardon me, $5 million on new crystalware for all of our embassies. what's wrong with the crystal we have now? they had to spend the money because they could come back to congress to say we could save $5 million. so we are addressing the wrong problems. we're not holding people accountable. so maybe it's time for the states to exert and the people to exert some common sense on us. i dare say there's not one member of this body that would let their adolescent child run up a bill and not eventually try to intercede on a credit card but let them continue to run it up. well, congress and the u.s. government is that adolescent child. we are the adolescents and the people in the states are the grownups. and we're -- where we are today at an impasse, and it really does kind of sound like kindergarten. i'm not going to talk to you. i don't like the way you did that. we had the majority leader the other day

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20121122

believes we need to simplify. we cannot have the tax code that has higher rates and more complexity than anywhere else in the world. we have got to address the system that really hurts- innovation and high technology economy. we did not worry about those when we were doing well, but they are getting in the way of progress we have got to go through the process in a simpler and more logical and efficient way. this is the number one thing thousands of business people said was the biggest barrier to investing in the u.s. we have got to upgrade our infrastructure, but we have got to focus on those that are economically important. we have got to understand the things that are driving up the cost of doing business. we know what those are, but we need a plan for going forward we need to create a framework for rapidly developing and the windfall. we have a path to energy independence. that is a bridge to renewable energy. if we can move to dass, we get tremendous benefits -- if we can move to gas, we can get tremendous and benefits. we have not been able to act on these things. >> let me jump to doug and steve and try to poke holes in this in a second. if we roll back time to just before the financial crisis, doug was out there bitching about already, but it is much worse. we are back to 156% of gdp. you are still in crisis mode. you have a private sector and events that led to a government response and a worsening of debt issues, so my question is why is it never on this list to get the private sector in control? there is nothing here saying we need to bring that down, so it is a question i want to ask you. the question is, if you think about restoring the u.s. economy and the u.s. consumer, i do not know where you get a growth if you leave the private suite where it is now. >> we try to get the transparency on the balance sheets. we have done dodd-frank. that takes care of making sure it does not fall apart. >> no more corruption. things have been done. and smith i think the biggest problem is the flip side. -- i think the biggest problem is the flip side. that is driving the fact we have financial problems. that is driving the in the quality problems. -- that any quality problems. we are going to younever fixed n the quality problem if we do not get ahead of it. >> i think there are a lot of things to focus on. to me there are many issues. there is one that is central. this country was a startup. it has grown to be the leader of the free world on the backs of not just the patriots but entrepreneurs who took risks are not just companies but entire industries, and we need to build on five. other countries have gotten much more focused on of entrepreneurship. they are saving -- changing their policy around capital investment and research to drive more of the ideation side of it. we are seeing a globalization. we are still the leader, and we can build on it. >> is there evidence? >> it is based on where the entrepreneurship is coming, but other countries are stepping up. the venture from the fact facebook, a decade ago they were in silicon valley. good that says the context of. -- that sets the context. the one area congress did work together in a bipartisan way was just starting the job site. illegalized crown funding. it is important for entrepreneurs. >> you like the free market. >> i like entrepreneurs, but government has zero set the context. -- house to set the context. there is more work to be done. there is a bill but was introduced in a bipartisan way that deals with high skilled immigration, some of the issues over regulations. now they are focused on passing the start of. we take the step and focus on creating these new industries. while we are having these discussions, other nations are racing forward, but i look at it like the glass is half full. >> can i invite some pessimism? >> i am fundamentally optimistic that now that i am in this town i drink every night. it is unbelievable. we have big problems. if you think about the structure, we have huge programs that are serving older americans, and those are crushing discretionary funds, the core function of government where you invest in the future, so our government allows a path to the future. that is fundamentally bad. we have to agree innovation will solve all of our problems, our education problems, our energy problems, but we have changed the game completely, but we have to compete. those are transferred to the rest of the world. >> i want to jump to bob, and when you go around the world before 9-11, and you ask what they thought of the united , they admire the united states. they looked at the united states as the plays that could pull a rabbit out of i have and reinvent itself. they see a nation constrained , overreaching.mo we talked to tim geithner. can you tell other economies what to do? it has been limited. when you look at barack obama's meeting in london when the global economy was on fire, it is interesting. she laid down the gauntlet we are not going to play by the rules. it has been interesting to look at the limits we have influencing a nation like germany. i asked you, do you think america can influence the international system? i would love to see how you see the challenges ahead and put them in a geostrategic all context. >> i think it is as important as a strong military. i think economics is an answer of rebates as important as traditional policy. i think we have moved from an era where rates are the measure of a nation's strength or vulnerability to an era where sovereign interest rates are a measure of strength or vulnerability. angela merkel can tell you what the spread is on the most recent greek bond auction -- option. the world has always looked to the u.s. in a somewhat perplexed fashion. people thought we would never get off the ground all those years ago. they are at once cheering for us to be successful, but bottom line is we came through a crisis. japan and an undervalued currency in china. i think it is time to recommit to the three elements of a successful global economy. i will give real credit to the obama administration. it has been very good on investment. foreign investment in the u.s. creates jobs that are disproportionately exports oriented. this is capital we should be fighting for. i think we need to approach trade with the same degree of confidence, and i think the world is ready to engage in this. angela merkel oppose the free trade agreement. i think we should go for it. there is a trans-pacific partnership negotiated. let's proceed with confidence, because i think people want to succeed. >> jonathan would pound the chinese with this thing. what are you going to do if mitt romney calls china a currency manipulator? china did not believe romney would do that, but what is interesting is bill would send these notes out saying barack obama is a bigger thatcher -- china basher. it was a real who issue during the debate. as everyone remember talking about china? we are talking about china. we are talking about 1 billion people coming on line. we got into a discussion about china, and on and said, if we are not careful, china will amex the content of -- annex the continents of africa. if we get this stuff right, is this directed at making us feel good, or view gain ground in a competitive environment against china? >> we have real strength in america upgraded we have strengths in higher education, a lot of science and technology. we have allowed a lot of unnecessary costs of doing business suit rebop -- to creep up. all the other countries have taskforce louis of national leaders but work every day to drive -- task forces of national leaders at work every day to make it simpler to do business, so what has happened is we have taken for granted we have these great strengths. we are talking about keeping our infrastructure modern. we are talking about not throwing all sorts of obstacles in terms of regulatory approaches. the real concern is how can we take action. how can we be strategic? how can we start taking an initiative again in moving this country. >> you think that is possible beaumont -- it is possible? there is a lot of strategy. we have a world where we wait for a crisis and then moves. these are your pals. is it fun? second, i agree with a lot of where michael is trying to take us, but i also want to look of the world as it is, not as i hope it might be, and i guess the question is, do you believe there's a chance for strategic response as opposed to a reactive response because of the inability to get along with the white house? >> we do not get along. that has been true for a long time. i think we have to go to a different kind of leadership where presidential leadership meant here is what america needs. i will send this bill to congress and say we need to do this. it gives them air cover. >> maybe obama ought to make bill clinton the fiscal cliff envoy y. >> this is really an important. first, better internal leadership. i want to get back to what bob said. we have to be more outward focus. we have given up engaging in africa, and all the income growth, having those helps us in defense issues and other things, and we are not doing fine now. -- doing that now. >> the easiest way, so maybe we get in right. let's negotiate the first trade agreement in over 40 years. president obama is the first president not to negotiate a trade agreement. >> those were negotiated by the previous administration. good the bottom line is we have an opportunity right now to knock down barriers. you get overwhelming support from that. i think it would have been tougher the first term. there is an opportunity to move forward. we need to help our current trading partners get in right so we can all engage china and the other markets in a way that serves everyone. >> the world still conveys -- still envies financial innovation. they are good at scaling. they are not so good at inventing. i want to go back to this issue of bipartisan support and talk about the republican side. the president did create an entrepreneurship. that got the ball rolling. they also launched a startup america of program that focused more on and on the company's. we also focused on the private sector effort. we made a road map to get this back. the white house so that, and that led to the job site, which got done because the president thought if done -- got into the table. 80% of republicans and democrats voted for that. the reason is because all the job growth is from four companies. you want to get 8% unemployment rate down. the place to double down and focus is innovation and entrepreneurship. now the election is over. this is recognition this is important. there are many issues being debated. they are all important issues. the most important thing is making sure we build on this. >> i do not mean to pick on the president. i liked the idea that you start on things where there is a lot of agreement, but looking at trade and who will help. -- looking at trade will help. they do not even know each other, and they have no idea what the common ground is. >> i guess the concern is how apple does not make any thing in america. what does that tell us? we have made the cost and complexity of doing business in this country prohibitive, and we have not risen our skill base enough to have employees that can earn about high wage -- earn the high wage. i think so entrepreneurship is part of the solution and it has been bipartisan to support small business. we have to support of all business. i come back to a lot of this is blocking and tackling. it is being strategic. our alumni are all over the world, and our international alumni have been even more anxious to the school put this on. we believe most of the people in the rest of the world actually understand this. we have been able to lead the opening in global economy. we have been able to create some positive dynamic in the way the global economy is developed, and without america pushing, what are the alternatives? do we really liked the chinese model? >> of course business in general we want to support. if you look at job growth, it is not from small business. it is not from big business. i love small businesses. there is a good article even this week. small business and large business are great. the future of america is going to be young companies. that is where we need to focus. the jobs active does that. we need to make sure we remain a startup nation. >> when we go around and i asked what people think the source of american power is, they say the pentagon or the size of the federal debt. if you are the biggest debtor in the world, it gives you a certain power. are you optimistic these can be reversed? >> i am very optimistic about america's future. i think we have to get our house right, but we have to be prepared to engage with confidence abroad. we still are the shining light on the hill people look to. they are disappointed when we do not deliver. we are disappointed when we do not deliver. i think we can find a way to move forward. it is not going to be simple. our government takes longer to get things done than the real economy would like. and we have got to intersect the real and political economy, but i am optimistic we can make progress. >> thank you so much. >> i am like dr. doom. i come on stage. >> next, the medal of honor winners talk about their lives and experiences. that is followed by a look at the lives of teenagers in the white house. at 8 eastern, tom brokaw moderates a discussion on the treatment of returning veterans. joining him are colin powell. the editor in chief discusses the potential impact of pending fiscal close budget cuts on the federal work force. then the future of the postal service, which has lost $16 billion in 2012 and a look at consumer confidence, plus your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. in 2007, the staff sergeant took action during an ambush in afghanistan. in 2010, president obama awarded him the medal of honor, the highest military honor given. we are going to assure you that ceremony and a discussion with james livingston on their lives and experiences. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and michelle obama. ♪ let us pray. almighty god, we invite your presence as we gather to recognize these extraordinary actions, an american soldier, a patriot, and hero. our hearts resonate with the noble theme of mercy more than life. may our remembrance let us know that we have selfless warriors living among us today. as we remember his actions, may we also remember that all of our armed forces stand across the world today. may we all recommit ourselves to selfless service for our families and fellow citizens. this inspires renewed unity in our own lands. to celebrate this day, we recognize his parents. may we recognize the safe return of their loved one. let us never to give thanks more than we do right now, to those who paid the glorious liberty which we enjoy. this we pray in your holy name. >> good afternoon, everybody. please be seated. on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. thank you, chaplain carver, for that beautiful invocation. of all the privileges that come with serving as president of the united states, i have none greater than serving as commander-in-chief of the finest military that the world has ever known. and of all the military decorations that a president and a nation can bestow, there is none higher than the medal of honor. today is particularly special. since the end of the vietnam war, the medal of honor has been awarded nine times for conspicuous gallantry in an ongoing or recent conflict. sadly, our nation has been unable to present this decoration to the recipients themselves, because each gave his life -- his last full measure of devotion -- for our country. indeed, as president, i have presented the medal of honor three times -- and each time to the families of a fallen hero. today, therefore, marks the first time in nearly 40 years that the recipient of the medal of honor for an ongoing conflict has been able to come to the white house and accept this recognition in person. it is my privilege to present our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor, to a soldier as humble as he is heroic, staff sergeant salvatore a. giunta. now, i'm going to go off-script here for a second and just say i really like this guy. i think anybody -- we all just get a sense of people and who they are, and when you meet sal and you meet his family, you are just absolutely convinced that this is what america is all about. and it just makes you proud. and so this is a joyous occasion for me -- something that i have been looking forward to. the medal of honor reflects the gratitude of an entire nation. so we are also joined here today by several members of congress, including both senators and several representatives from staff sergeant giunta's home state of iowa. we are also joined by leaders from across my administration and the department of defense, including the secretary of defense, robert gates, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen. where's mike? there he is, right there. army secretary john mchugh, and chief of staff of the army, general george casey. we are especially honored to be joined by staff sergeant giunta's fellow soldiers, his teammates and brothers from battle company, 2d of the 503d of the 173d airborne brigade, and several members of that rarest of fraternities that now welcomes him into its ranks -- the medal of honor society. please give them a big round of applause. we also welcome the friends and family who made staff sergeant giunta into the man that he is, including his lovely wife, jenny, and his parents, steven and rosemary, as well as his siblings, who are here. it was his mother, after all, who apparently taught him as a young boy in small-town iowa how to remove the screen from his bedroom window in case of fire. what she didn't know was that by teaching sal how to jump from his bedroom and sneaking off in the dead of night, she was unleashing a future paratrooper [laughter] -- who would one day fight in the rugged mountains of afghanistan 7,000 miles away. during the first of his two tours of duty in afghanistan, staff sergeant giunta was forced early on to come to terms with the loss of comrades and friends. his team leader at the time gave him a piece of advice, "you just try -- you just got to try to do everything you can when it's your time to do it." you've just got to try to do everything you can when it's your time to do it. salvatore giunta's time came on october 25, 2007. he was a specialist then, just 22 years old. sal and his platoon were several days into a mission in the korengal valley -- the most dangerous valley in northeast afghanistan. the moon was full. the light it cast was enough to travel by without using their night-vision goggles. with heavy gear on their backs, and air support overhead, they made their way single file down a rocky ridge crest, along terrain so steep that sliding was sometimes easier than walking. they hadn't traveled a quarter mile before the silence was shattered. it was an ambush, so close that the cracks of the guns and the whizz of the bullets were simultaneous. tracer fire hammered the ridge at hundreds of rounds per minute -- "more," sal said later, "than the stars in the sky." the apache gunships above saw it all, but couldn't engage with the enemy so close to our soldiers. the next platoon heard the shooting, but were too far away to join the fight in time. and the two lead men were hit by enemy fire and knocked down instantly. when the third was struck in the helmet and fell to the ground, sal charged headlong into the wall of bullets to pull him to safety behind what little cover there was. as he did, sal was hit twice -- one round slamming into his body armor, the other shattering a weapon slung across his back. they were pinned down, and two wounded americans still lay up ahead. so sal and his comrades regrouped and counterattacked. they threw grenades, using the explosions as cover to run forward, shooting at the muzzle flashes still erupting from the trees. then they did it again. and again. throwing grenades, charging ahead. finally, they reached one of their men. he'd been shot twice in the leg, but he had kept returning fire until his gun jammed. as another soldier tended to his wounds, sal sprinted ahead, at every step meeting relentless enemy fire with his own. he crested a hill alone, with no cover but the dust kicked up by the storm of bullets still biting into the ground. there, he saw a chilling sight, the silhouettes of two insurgents carrying the other wounded american away -- who happened to be one of sal's best friends. sal never broke stride. he leapt forward. he took aim. he killed one of the insurgents and wounded the other, who ran off. sal found his friend alive, but badly wounded. sal had saved him from the enemy -- now he had to try to save his life. even as bullets impacted all around him, sal grabbed his friend by the vest and dragged him to cover. for nearly half an hour, sal worked to stop the bleeding and help his friend breathe until the medevac arrived to lift the wounded from the ridge. american gunships worked to clear the enemy from the hills. and with the battle over, first platoon picked up their gear and resumed their march through the valley. they continued their mission. it had been as intense and violent a firefight as any soldier will experience. by the time it was finished, every member of first platoon had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. five were wounded. and two gave their lives, sal's friend, sergeant joshua c. brennan, and the platoon medic, specialist hugo v. mendoza. now, the parents of joshua and hugo are here today. and i know that there are no words that, even three years later, can ease the ache in your hearts or repay the debt that america owes to you. but on behalf of a grateful nation, let me express profound thanks to your sons' service and their sacrifice. and could the parents of joshua and hugo please stand briefly? now, i already mentioned i like this guy, sal. and as i found out myself when i first spoke with him on the phone and when we met in the oval office today, he is a low- key guy, a humble guy, and he doesn't seek the limelight. and he'll tell you that he didn't do anything special, that he was just doing his job, that any of his brothers in the unit would do the same thing. in fact, he just lived up to what his team leader instructed him to do years before, "you do everything you can." staff sergeant giunta, repeatedly and without hesitation, you charged forward through extreme enemy fire, embodying the warrior ethos that says, "i will never leave a fallen comrade." your actions disrupted a devastating ambush before it could claim more lives. your courage prevented the capture of an american soldier and brought that soldier back to his family. you may believe that you don't deserve this honor, but it was your fellow soldiers who recommended you for it. in fact, your commander specifically said in his recommendation that you lived up to the standards of the most decorated american soldier of world war ii, audie murphy, who famously repelled an overwhelming enemy attack by himself for one simple reason, "they were killing my friends." that's why salvatore giunta risked his life for his fellow soldiers -- because they would risk their lives for him. that's what fueled his bravery -- not just the urgent impulse to have their backs, but the absolute confidence that they had his. one of them, sal has said -- of these young men that he was with, he said, "they are just as much of me as i am." they are just as much of me as i am. so i would ask sal's team, all of battle company who were with him that day, to please stand and be recognized as well. [applause] gentlemen, thank you for your service. we're all in your debt. and i'm proud to be your commander-in-chief. these are the soldiers of our armed forces. highly trained. battle-hardened. each with specialized roles and responsibilities, but all with one thing in common -- they volunteered. in an era when it's never been more tempting to chase personal ambition or narrow self- interest, they chose the opposite. they felt a tug, they answered a call, they said, "i'll go." and for the better part of a decade, they have endured tour after tour in distant and difficult places, they have protected us from danger, they have given others the opportunity to earn a better and more secure life. they are the courageous men and women serving in afghanistan even as we speak. they keep clear focus on their mission, to deny safe haven for terrorists who would attack our country, to break the back of the taliban insurgency, to build the afghans' capacity to defend themselves. they possess the steely resolve to see their mission through. they are made of the same strong stuff as the troops in this room, and i am absolutely confident that they will continue to succeed in the missions that we give them, in afghanistan and beyond. after all, our brave servicemen and women and their families have done everything they've been asked to do. they have been everything that we have asked them to be." if i am a hero," sal has said, "then every man who stands around me, every woman in the military, every person who defends this country is." and he's right. this medal today is a testament to his uncommon valor, but also to the parents and the community that raised him, the military that trained him, and all the men and women who served by his side. all of them deserve our enduring thanks and gratitude. they represent a small fraction of the american population, but they and the families who await their safe return carry far more than their fair share of our burden. they fight halfway around the globe, but they do it in hopes that our children and our grandchildren won't have to. they are the very best part of us. they are our friends, our family, our neighbors, our classmates, our coworkers. they are why our banner still waves, our founding principles still shine, and our country -- the united states of america -- still stands as a force for good all over the world. so, please join me in welcoming staff sergeant salvatore a. giunta for the reading of the citation. >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress, march 3, 1863, has awarded, in the name of congress, the medal of honor to then specialist salvatore a. giunta, united states army. specialist salvatore a. giunta distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity, at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, in action, with an armed enemy in the korengal valley, afghanistan, on october 25, 2007. while conducting a patrol as team leader, with company b, 2d battalion airborne, 503d infantry regiment, specialist giunta and his team were navigating through harsh terrain when they were ambushed by a well-armed and well-coordinated insurgent force. while under heavy enemy fire, specialist giunta immediately sprinted towards cover and engaged the enemy. seeing that his squad leader had fallen, and believing that he had been injured, specialist giunta exposed himself to withering enemy fire and raced towards his squad leader, helped him to cover and administered medical aid. while administering first aid, enemy fire struck special giunta's body armor and his secondary weapon. without regard to the ongoing fire, specialist giunta engaged the enemy before prepping and throwing grenades, using the explosions for cover in order to conceal his position. attempting to reach additional wounded fellow soldiers who were separated from the squad, specialist giunta and his team encountered a barrage of enemy fire that forced them to the ground. the team continued forward, and upon reaching the wounded soldiers, specialist giunta realized that another soldier was still separated from the element. specialist giunta then advanced forward on his own initiative. as he crested the top of a hill, he observed two insurgents carrying away an american soldier. he immediately engaged the enemy, killing one and wounding the other. upon reaching the wounded soldier, he began to provide medical aid, as his squad caught up and provided security. specialist giunta's unwavering courage, selflessness and decisive leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon's ability to defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow american soldier from the enemy. specialist salvatore a. giunta's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, company b, 2d battalion airborne, 503d infantry regiment and the united states army. [applause] >> may his compassionate actions inspire us all to do the same for generations to come. [applause] please give them great wisdom in roles that lie before them where they continue with dignity, honor, courage, and the humility. may your wisdom rest of our president to serve our great country. god bless the marriage of our armed services. god bless america. amen. >> thank you so much, everybody. let's give him one more big round of applause. [applause] >> next two medal recipients from the vietnam war talk about why they joined the military. the medal of honor is the highest u.s. military honor and is usually presented by the president of the united states. this is about 40 minutes. >> >> i am proud and honored today to introduce two of america's military's greatest individuals. salvatore giunta is a former staff sergeant in the united states army, the first living person to receive the united states highest award for valor. the second is james e. livingston. he was awarded the united states highest military decoration during the vietnam war. he served on active duty in the marine corps of our 33 years before returning on september 1, 1995. his decorations included the medal of honor, silver star medal, a bronze star medal, purpleheart, navy accommodation medal. i now present the major general and staff sgt. [applause] >> the start of this in 2006. jerry served at hotels and conference centers in new york and northern virginia. while serving as general manager as a resort in leesburg, he founded the national medal of honor society. 15 recipients participated. they went on to raise a total of $150,000. this continues to this day. in addition to volunteering, he also volunteers for the church hill center which was founded in 1968. he is the proud father of three children who have also volunteered over the years. he took winston churchill's lifestyle very seriously. the wine flowed very freely. >> welcome. good afternoon. is this microphone on? can you hear me now? july 12, 1962, president abraham lincoln signed a joint resolution that created the first medal of honor. the first recipient was presented to an army won in 1963. today there are only 81 living recipients of the medal of honor. i'm very honored to be here with two of these great american heroes. before i asked general livingston for some questions. i fell one of the most interesting facts, is as whether a woman would be asked to be president of the united states. do we know there was one woman who earned the medal of honor? let me tell you a little bit about her. dr. mary walker was born in 1832. she was a prisoner during the american civil war. she was assigned to duty as an assistant surgeon. she served as a contract surgeon and the service of the united states. she was not a commission officer. she was an early leader of women's rights in america. she wore pants. she cause a big scandal back in the day. president andrew johnson presented her with our country's highest military award, the medal of honor. she wore that pinned to her chest. it was rescinded in 1917 with 900 and others. she refused to return the medal of honor. she wore it stubbornly and proudly to her death. the story does not end here. jimmy carter restored her medal of honor. we do have one woman who has received the medal of honor. you can read about her on the medal of honor website. i like to start with you. in your book, there's a wonderful photo a few swearing in your daughter in 1991. do you want to tell us about that experience? >> let me acknowledge a special lady first of all. i was coming to her early today. last time we saw her husband we were at a bar in georgia. we have a couple of years to get there. it is good to see you. he gets to see all of these veterans. i was very pleased to hear about the stories of the korean war. my daughter is a very special person. she was 17 years old. we doctor at the naval academy and got on an airplane and went to the philippines. to is by yourself or a year before she came to visit us. she excelled in the naval academy. she became a flag sergeant. we are just proud of her. put as far as women in the military, i am convinced there is a great place for ladies in the military. i am also convinced the place is not to be on the front lines. and not think that is the place even for men to be some time. this is something we can all be particularly proud of. this was done with an exceptionally fine job. i am pleased to have the opportunity to serve. we welcome to the ranks and except on the frontlines of combat that they can do any job any man can do. >> would you like to share your thoughts and comments? >> i did not serve with any ladies in the military really. it is one team, one fight. to defend this country and to stand up for this country, we are all capable of it. we say 18 years old is when you should come in. we are all capable of doing everything we want as long as we set our minds to it. that is a level playing field. >> this talk about that you brew up in georgia. the graduate a year before i was born. there is a great quote in your book. you need to go back to school and do better or write this tractor for the rest of your life. tell us what happened after that. >> i was going to north georgia college military school. they had me locked up for a year trying to get my grades to be a little bit better. my dad allow me to transfer to auburn university. i joined a fraternity which i never should have done. i parted for a quarter. when i got my report from the first quarter, they were all f's. my dad brought me home. he said i could work on his tractor go back to auburn and study hard. i graduated in 1962. there remain a defining moment in my life. that was a very defining moment. >> why did you decide to join the marine corps? what lessons did you learn about leadership during york trad -- during your training? >> after i attended north georgia college, back in those days you had to have two years of rotc. i went to auburn university and i had one year of r.o.t.c. remaining. i joined the air force because i did not want to carry a rifle. i finished my two years and i got my draft notice in 1961. i had all intentions of graduating from auburn and going to work as a civil engineer and never had anything to do with the military. i got my draft notice income across ago looking marine purity city could go to quantico and they will get you in good shape. i had to do both boot camps and one summer. -- in one summer. i then went back and graduated in joined the marine corps. it was the most defining experience of my life. i have all intention of staying in three years and getting out. as i got involved with the people in the leadership and the mission of the marine corps and what we're doing for the country and just the experience itself, i decided to stay. it was a great opportunity for me to serve the country. what i learned from that experience is everyone that you meet in the military and the country has something to offer. everyone has something to offer. everyone is capable of doing something. you are more capable of doing more than what you expect to can do. i always say that we always raise the bar higher. that was some of the experiences. people are extraordinary. the young marines were exceptional all through my career. >> your younger days were a bit different. i read that you grep up in iowa. you worked at a subway sandwich shop. >> i did. i was a stand which artists. -- sandwich artists. >> you served under john fitzgerald kennedy. why did you decide to join the united states army? >> i was a senior in high school. i graduate in in 2003. i did not really feel like going to school anymore. i did not want to go to college. i did not know what i wanted to do. one night i was mopping the floors around 930 or 10:00 at night. a subway was closed and a regular commercial came on and something to the tune of see the recruiters to get a free t- shirt. i was working as subway. i wanted a free t-shirt. that sounded fun. i went down there and talked to the recruiter. he told me what they tell you. we are a nation at war. we have been at war in iraq since 2003 and afghanistan since 2001. if you want to make a tangible difference, join the military. i thought that was pretty solid. i took the shirt and i left. what he said to me really resonated. all these privileges and freedoms we have as americans and given to a so really, at such a great cost. they come from the costs of other people that have provided us this lifestyle. all these people have something in common that they have stood for sending more than themselves. i thought that sounded like something i wanted to do. i am proud to be an american. the best way i could do that was to join the army. i went in and i told them wanted to join the army. he asked me what i wanted to do. i did not know. i thought you just joined and they decided. i had to come up with something. what do want to do? spit and fight bad guys. there was a parachute hanging in the office. of searching for something. i said jump out of planes. he said that is an extra $150 a month. i wanted to do it. i signed up for four years. >> you were decorated with the medal of honor by president nixon in may 1974 your heroic actions. in looking back, how did the training you receive help you have the courage to take the heroic action you took that day? >> the defining moment was witnessing the young americans that i was certain with. and understanding the intensity. the head into companies up until that point. they had been wiped out. this is a thing that i remember most about that particular battle. the thing that i liked it is back morning we had a company totally pinned down. later we found that there were 10 vietnamese in that area. i had 180 marines. we had to go across a rice patty that was totally open to help rescue that particular company. at 5:00 in the morning, i tell these young marines to fix bayonets and we are going. there is no moment of the legislation -- of hesitation. there is no looking back. they wanted to rescue their fellow marines. i tell you what. that particular moment in my life, to see that happen with a 19 year-old marines, it is a defining moment in my life. how great and how lucky this country is to have young people here would be in a situation of that sort on that morning who did not realize what would happen to them. as a consequence, 35 marines walked away from that engagement. it was not over. i said we have to sell up and held the other country. the 35 remaining marines are hesitating. it is an indication of the exceptional quality of the people who are wanting to serve this country today your and never was so proud to see how what they would do in a moment of difficulty, how they would rise to the occasion. i did not answer your question. it was a message to wanted to get out. we are blessed in this country. >> president truman often said he would rather wear the medal of honor then the president of the united states. you received the medal of honor by president obama. what did he say to you when you were presented with it? >> that is a difficult question. i do not remember that so much. that he was proud of me and that the country was proud of me. one thing for me that that it, it is not for me. i've never been in a gunfight or battle alone. i've never been asked to do anything alone. we have always done it together. it is not about the individual. it is about the team and the person to the left and right of you. that at the white house thing with the president was something very special. to see my buddies that i fought alongside with receiving the accolades was something very special that validated what we were doing and that people did appreciate what was going on in the small pockets of the mountains in afghanistan. he told me he was proud of us. >> we have a very important election coming up in a few days. a few questions about the democratic process. i like to know your thoughts on the democratic process here in america. some people have to live under the role of dictators and elected leaders. >> i just about the number of people in the world today that have an opportunity to vote an exercise that democratic process because young americans were willing to go into harm's way. as i listen to the korean veterans, south korea. i listened to the world war ii veterans in thing of all the people in the world who have the opportunity to exercise that right to vote and elect their leaders. the thing i would say about this great country we call america is we are the greatest hope of the world. we absolutely need a strong, responsive, at least from upfront america. -- lead from up front america. if we did not have that, i'm not sure where we would be today. your responsibility is beyond my ability to express. what you represent not only to your country but to the people of the world. i am really honored to have a chance to have served this great nation and witnessed through the years what we have done for the world's, specifically what those who have served have done for the world where people can exercise the freedom to vote. >> i am 27 years old. this'll be my first time voting. i say that because when i was in the military, i spent all my times overseas. i did not want to have to vote on something and then find out the person i wanted did not win and the decision on what we were going to do was going to be up to someone else. i am excited about voting. i feel bad that i am 27 and it will be my first time ever have. i am excited for its. this'll be a good step for me to actually participate in my own government. i'm pretty proud of it. we should. a lot of people still do not have that opportunity. we are very blessed to be able to have that opportunity. >> for those individuals here who decide to serve in the military, how does that leadership and experience better prepare them for civilian life and work in the private sector? >> i think the biggest, and i can say in answering that question, i think the thing that really defines the military and how it translates to the civilian sector is to learn about people. if you want to be successful in the military, you do it through other people. you have great expectations of other people. i look at the ceo's in the country. they do not do by themselves. they are able to delegate and get people authority and responsibility and empower people to get the job done. regardless if you're in the military or the ceo of a company, if you have the ability to really understand and empower and delegate requirements to people, people will perform for you. there's really no difference between the military and the civilian world. the person who knows how to deal with people can be successful either in the military or as a ceo on wall street. >> i think the military has given almost all my experiences. too often in the civilian world you have a boss. in the military they have a leader. they're like to say follow me i'm going to do this. i will show you how to do it. next time you do it. they can still be your boss but first and foremost they are leaders. the military taught me about standards not just making standards in setting standards but obtaining the standards. not everyone is good enough to run with the big dogs. we except that. by inspiring one another in the military, as soon as you join you will be inspired by others because it is no longer about you. it is about you and everyone around you. and having a list of goals. a nine year old can have goals. without a plan failing to prepare is preparing to fail. that is a guarantee. the military has helped orchestrate a plan. >> as we are approaching this election, i like both of you to think back in history, all the way back to 1776. who are some of your favorite presidents you admire the most and why? >> general livingston knows more presidents. i only have a few i can actually draw on. >> way to be politically correct there, fella. >> i went to john f. kennedy high school. it seemed to me he was an amazing president. one that has always stuck out to me fdr and the new deal and how he inspired a country in the personal adversity. he had polio. he is in a wheelchair. he did not let that bother him. he did not show weakness. no matter what we think our disability may be, we can overcome that and show a strong response and we can push forward and motivate others. for that i like that. i like him. >> we had so many inspiring presidents. i do a lot of reading about george washington. that had not been for george washington we will not of a country. i've always been very inspired by him. abraham lincoln made those decisions that are necessary at the time to pull the country back together and put us on a new course. in terms a modern day, i look at all the presidents. we are at a very critical point in our history. i think he has been the most touching for me individually. i hear pros and cons about the president. i think the american people thought they were the best candidates. i would ever say we've ever had a bad president. all is that better presidents. they did to come along at the right moment. i think they all came along in the right moment. it is a tough job. i think we have been blessed to have great presidents. at this point i think we'll open it up to the audience for questions. >> thank you. before that day in the white house how you deal with the massive attention that has befallen on your family that de? the intention is good. it is not about me. it is about actions that happen every single day. i try to stress how generic my story is. >> the attention is good, i think, because it is not really about me, it is about the military and actions that happen every single day. i tried to stress how generic my story is. in the day i received the medal of honor for the actions, october 25, 2007, i was not there alone. i did not shoot the most bullets or kill the most bad guys do anything more amazing that anyone ever of us were doing. we had a job to do. we had more steps to concord and people to cover them and we -- we did not go in there not knowing what we were getting into. none of us worked at subway. we were all professional soldiers. i think after receiving the medal of honor, i still was one of the boys -- never been special. average at best. it speaks so greatly about the military. i can say that because there are a lot of people are around the united states within that i am something special. and i am not. i can use this medal because they will listen to me and it will give me a microphone to say i am not. we are all capable of doing more and changing the world. every single day we wake of we have a new opportunity to do good things for ourselves and others and if we don't take advantage of that we are missing out of the opportunity. the spotlight is on me but i will tell stories about of the people. it has never been about me, ever. >> of u.s. army retired -- i was with you this morning you receive the medal of honor at the sheraton hotel in washington, d.c. i met your wife also in the elevator and had a good chat with her, too. i did not know if she is here or not, but i would sure like to meet her again. when i talked -- you have, long way. one i talked you that they. you were going to go to the white house that morning. and that when i met you at the hotel. there were a whole bunch of 173rd guys there and i was there for the funeral of a guy i served in vietnam with the guys -- too see ed burke be buried. you just happen to be there waiting to go to the white house. and maybe you do not remember that. i gave him my card and i said if i could help you in any way, let me know. i am still around. it was an honor to meet you. and i've got a grandson in the big red one in afghanistan right now, and he got wounded about three weeks ago. just took a few mortar fragments in the legs and was calling home and saying he was sticking with the outfit and not getting medically evacuate. i just want to say, hi. >> hello, sir. good seeing you again. [applause] >> i think i am getting noted about asking about books but i have been a teacher-librarian, and we are all fortunate enough to be here in this convention and it is education which is better than any class from i have been in. tell us about the books. we were talking earlier about the one written about you. and the one thing we can do is go back home and make sure our public libraries and school libraries have these books so people can learn about the people we have gotten to here today and this whole week. >> i just wanted to acknowledge the vietnam veterans who are here. let me see your hands. i want to thank you for your service and, ladies, for your service and say, we never lost a fight in the war, it was lost in washington. and i just want to acknowledge the fact you did a wonderful job. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, everyone, for joining us today and special thanks to general livingston and sal giunta. >> coming up, the lives of teenagers in the white house with susan ford bales. at it o'clock the treatment of returning veterans. joining him are colin powell. leaders in the film and music industries discuss hollywood's edge impact on american culture and how the industry's adapt to technological innovation. friday morning on "washington journal" the editor in chief of government executive magazine discusses the impact of pending fiscal cliff budget cuts on the federal work force. alan odom on the future of the postal service. also a look at consumer confidence with washington post financial reporter daniel douglas. "washington journal" is live from des 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> on guard outside of thehomes of crown officials and with british artillery aimed at the town house and home of the journal courts, it was easy to understand why postilions felt threatened by this occupations. many heated house soldiers started to serve register of racial tension in their town. not everyone in boston is white. but in a month of their arrival of 1768, three british officers have been discovered encouraging african-american slaves to attack their white masters. one of those drunk officers is captain john wilson. he assured the black bostonian that the soldiers would come here to procure your freedom and with your help and assistance we should be able to drive the liberty boys to the devil. while the slaves ignored these lies, the british army is not in boston to free the slaves. several white residents watched complains. they were engaged in a dangerous ploy. >> 7 night at 8:00 eastern part of the holiday weekend now and monday morning. on c-span 3 american history to be. now behind the scenes at the white house with two presidential daughters who spent part of their teenage years living there. it is a conversation with susan ford bales and lyndon johnson robb. this event in new york is one hour and 15 minutes. >> susan ford bales is the daughter of president gerald ford and betty ford. she lived in the white house during her high school years and served as an official hostess. she is a member of the board of directors. they helped launch the national breast cancer awareness month and she has served as a national spokesman for national breast cancer awareness. she is the author of two novels. "double exposure." and its sequel, "sharp focus." she worked as a photojournalist for the associated press, at newsweek, and ladies home journal. she is here with her husband and she follows her father to the stage who spoke here when he was the minority leader of the house of representatives. lynda johnson robb is president of the national home library foundation and a member of the board of the lbj foundation. [laughter] mrs. robb has served for 44 years and is now the chairwoman. she put her own career including as a contributing editor on hold to work with her husband on his successful virginia gubernatorial candidacy. she launched and chaired the virginia women's cultural history project to research and document the history and contributions of the women of virginia. she is here with her husband chuck robb and her daughter and grandchildren. chief speech writer for the new york city mayor rudy guiliani, john is a senior columnist for newsweek and the daily beast as well as a cnn contributor. they were responsible for writing the eulogies of all firefighters and police officers who died during 9/11. the author of "independent nation." and "wingnut." also the editor of america's greatest newspaper columns. now, ladies and gentlemen, let's listen to a conversation on growing up in the white house. please join me in welcoming susan ford bales, lynda johnson robb, and john to the stage. [applause] >> by way of beginning, last night, we were sitting up late talking about today's talk. you are quoted in it. gosh, i don't have a copy of it. magically, there was a copy. i went to the page. it was called "touring dixie with lbj." written may 10, 1964. this was meant to be. here are the opening lines about lbj in which lynda is featured later in the column. touring the south with president johnson is like going back to the old evangelical chautauqua circuit. [laughter] this is clearly meant to be. as was indicated, we're going to have a casual conversation. history behind the scenes and personal life and the white house. obviously you have two wonderful, unique people with unique experiences. both of your father's ascended the presidency during great national trauma. your unique vantage point is one that no one can get no matter the books they read or the history they steady. starting with you, lynda, on november 22, 1963, where were you when you heard president john f. kennedy was shot? >> i was at the university of texas. i was a sophomore. i had gone to class that morning and i was looking forward to a wonderful evening that night. president kennedy was coming to austin and we were going to have a big dinner and fundraiser. $100. [laughter] i had gotten an extra ticket. i was going to take one of my best friends to the dinner. i came home for lunch at the dorm because you bought a meal ticket during those days. i came home and i had my lunch. i went up to my room and my former roommate called me and said, lynda, stay where you are. i am coming to get you. pretty soon, she showed up. we do not have a radio in our room and we did not have television. she had heard it on a radio in another friend's room that the president had been shot. she knew i had to get protected. she came and got me and we went to this person's room who had the radio. that is how i heard about it. we fell on our knees and started praying. eventually, we heard man on the hall. because it was a women's dorm. [laughter] this just shows you how long ago it was. [laughter] so, one of the dorm mothers came up bringing this man who i had never seen before but it was a secret service agent and he said we have to leave here. i was in a dorm with 300 women. many, many doors. if it was a man, it would be more unusual to see him on our floor but we had plumbers and people like that who came up. so i said, take me to the governor's mansion because i heard on the radio that my uncle johnny had been shot. i had grown up with his children and i thought he is not there. aunt nelly is not there. his children -- maybe i could give some comfort to them and we would be all together. also i thought they had state troopers and a might be a safer place to be. at that time, we did not know what happened. whether it was an individual or a conspiracy. it was there where i got a phone call from my father flying back to washington saying that president kennedy was dead. so -- i'm sure anybody who is all enough will remember that day and where they were and what they were doing. it was just horrible. i was fortunate because the secret service man who was with daddy jumped from the front seat to the back seat and put his body over daddy and protected him. >> before we get to susan, i have one quick question for you. what was it like when you first saw your father in person as president? >> to be honest, i don't remember. i came back to washington on public transportation spending i took an american airlines flight back. we landed at dulles airports and they sent a car out to get me. i got out and walked down the steps. my mother went public transportation when she was first lady. we did not know about flying. otherwise we just took public transportation. i didn't -- i went back and i spent the days after the funeral in washington. mother said i know you would want to be here because you loved him so much. and i did. president kennedy was very kind to us, me in particular as well as mrs. kennedy. she knew i wanted to be there. that is when i saw my father. we just went home to our home. we did not go to the white house. i did not go to the white house until january 20. other than to go by for the funeral. >> susan, the way your father ascended the presidency, obviously dramatic in a different way. those last days before nixon's resignation, what was the atmosphere like for you with the expectation and the pressure and the rumors? >> i was a senior in high school at the time. you know, the way my dad became vice president was unusual, too. [laughter] we were getting used to -- we did things differently. [laughter] i guess that is the best way to put it. dad never talked about it to the family until it was literally the last minute. he was one of those people if you told him this is a secret. do not repeat it. he did not. he kept it totally to himself. i think maybe he said something to my mother, but other than that, us children had no idea. in new because the news media was saying president nixon is going -- you knew it because the news media was saying president nixon is going to resign. you did not have the news media like today so it was very different. we had news media waiting in our front yard for something to happen. so, it was one of those things that dad did not say something until the very last minute. yes, we are going to the white house and we need to pick out clothes. [laughter] >> not a conversation most people can relate to. [laughter] what was that conversation like when he called you together? >> because my father and president nixon had been longtime friends, one of the first people who spoke to my dad when he became a congressman was nixon who was also in the house. there was a long relationship between the two families. when dad did tell us, it was one of those things of this is going to happen. it is very sad. we know the family. it was more a matter of being upset for what our country was getting ready to experience. and how sad that this had to happen to the united states. because my dad h ad 25 years in the congress. this was a very sad moment for him. as we have spent time talking, both of our parents became the healers at different times in our country under very different circumstances. thank goodness for that. >> absolutely. [applause] before we move on to the next subject matter, i want to focus on your perspective, susan, about the iconic moment where nixon is flying off and you all are standing, watching. what was living that moment behind your eyes like? what were you thinking? >> my brothers and i were not standing and watching it. we were in the white house kept in a room. it was my parents locking them out. -- walking them out. i do not remember them in any of the pictures. it was julie, david, and my parents walking them out. my dad came into the oval office with they had moved us children. you could just see this sadness. it was almost as if you had been to a funeral and there was a death. you did not know what to say. it was a very awkward moment of what do you say. we came together as a family knowing we were headed up to the east room where he would be sworn in, which of course was a very joyous moment to see your father, but what a sad moment for the american people. >> the question that i think probably everyone secretly asks themselves when they meet you is what is it like to grow up in the white house? a kid's perspective on a day-to- day living standpoint. what are your rooms like? >> first thing is it became my room. i wanted to know who else had been in my room. [laughter] so i asked the curator. he said, well, i can't think of anybody famous. [laughter] and so, then, i asked president eisenhower. who slept in this room when you were here? he said i think queen elisabeth lady in waiting was there. [laughter] then i found out more. i found out that mrs. truman's mother. [laughter] it was very interesting. they had a heater in the closet. so your clothes were kept nice and toasty. this was because mrs. wallace was an older woman. anyway, whatever. [laughter] so i kept studying. i just knew there was somebody famous i could share this room with. it had been caroline's room. lucy moved in to what was john's room. i had thought i was going to get this room with wonderful antique furniture. my mother moved our old furniture in. [laughter] that is the negative. the positive is now i have a piece of furniture that was and the white house. [laughter] i just wish it was a better quality. [laughter] not worth refinishing the desk. anyway, subsequently, i found out that after little willie died, they locked up his room to forever go into the room. what room was that? the curator said that was your room, ms. lynda. they said after abraham lincoln was assassinated, they brought his body back to the white house -- [laughter] -- and they took his body down and they described exactly where and they did an autopsy. [laughter] yes, it was my room. [laughter] i am always trying to raise money for literacy. a few years ago, a friend of mine was doing a book on the white house. i told this story in this children's book and i am thinking, my goodness gracious, i hope these children do not think it is too macabre. it was my room. i went down to the national gallery and i got a picture of two wonderful children, hung it over the mantelpiece, and decided it must have been john quincy adams children. i just made it up. [laughter] living in the white house for me, i was in college. i was there for a little while. then i went back to the university of texas. then, i went to work and i was in new york. i kept my room. then, i got married to chuck who is somewhere in this audience. [applause] wherever he is. there he is, over there. so, they are supposed to be clapping. [laughter] so, anyway, we got married in december, and chuck left in march. i was typical marine way. i was pregnant. [laughter] so, we had been married almost four months. so, he left to go to vietnam so i moved back in with mother and daddy. also in this audience is my white house baby. lucinda. she spent her first two months living in the white house. three months, i guess. ok. so, i have pictures of her in her baby basket and all that in the white house. lucinda in the east room, lucinda in the lincoln bedroom. [laughter] that was very exciting. you always did feel that you were surrounded by history and that the memories of all the other people who had lived there or surrounding new and that you had something to live up to. i think the hardest thing is what mother said about don't do anything you ever want to see on the front page of "the new york times." because you do not want to embarrass your family or do anything that would bring aggravation to them. i would go somewhere and somebody my age would say my mother did not want me to do this but when i had read that you had done it -- [laughter] nobody wants to be an example. i don't care whether who it is. nobody wants to have to live up to an image that is not real. i think that was the most difficult part. for instance, i got to meet carl sandburg. i was taking an english literature class. i got him to sign my english text book. [laughter] i have said enough. >> did you get an 'a'? >> as a matter of fact, i did. i was a very studious type. i was boring. except for a little short time at the end when i was not boring. i did not get mentioned a whole lot of times about the partying i was doing. >> we will get to that. [laughter] susan, when you were in the white house, it is the mid 70's. you are in high school. that is a pretty unique vantage point on that era. your youthful rebellion -- how did it manifest itself at the white house? >> unlike lynda, she lived on the second floor with her parents across the hall. i had the third floor to myself. i actually took julie's and david's room. we can all tell each other who lived in the room before the other person did. we did not move in like the johnsons. my dad commuted from alexandria, virginia. when the move again, it had turquoise blue shag carpeting. the only way to make an outgoing phone call was you pick up the phone and the white house operators who of the most wonderful people in the whole world, but because i was a senior in high school, they decided i would have to pick up the phone and say would you please call so and so and i would give them the number and they would dial it. one of the things is they put in a private line so all my phone calls could come and go. i did not have an answering machine but my friends could call my room directly. they do make a lot of concessions for you. when i had this grandiose idea that i was going to redecorate my bedroom, then you are informed that comes out of your personal pocket. the federal government does not redecorate your room for you. that is not one of the benefits. my mother shot that down pretty quickly. [laughter] >> you try to put a poster up -- if you try to put a poster up, is that frowned upon? >> i always wanted a brass bed from the time when i was a child. the curator said is there a brass bed in storage. the white house has these huge storage units of furniture. is there one that you can bring from storage and put it in susan room so she could have a brass bed? but it is not of the era of the house. [laughter] ok. eventually, clem found a brass bed in missouri that was of the era of the house. that was exquisite. i mean, it had a half canopy and it was the most beautiful it was the most beautiful thing in the whole wide world. jack carter and his wife wanted to keep the bed. they've realized how beautiful it was to. the family in missouri said, no. we are republicans. [laughter]there are all kinds of things that go on that you will never really hear about. tha>> that is a perfect segue. escape from the white house. you have -- you both have very good escape stories from the white house. lynda, escape from the white house. what is your story? >> i read a story about my predecessor. i read in the book that they wanted to know what people really thought about them. i do not know -- i do not want to know what people thought about me. they described how they put on some different clothes and went down to the first floor and walked through the house. you have to understand in our day and in susan's too, anybody who wanted to see the white house would get in line in the morning. they clean on mondays. but tuesday through saturday, the white house was open. you walked in. we were presumably not supposed to go down the stairs, nine to 12. but i decided i was going to see if i could get away with it. i just wanted to see if i could do it. we had secret service all the time. if you left the second floor or the third-floor, if you left the family quarters and he went down into the public area or you went out of the house, the secret service went with you. you could make a heaven out of hell or a hell of heaven. i decided i was going to accept the secret service and i will not tell on you if you do not tell on me. so, i put on my -- and covered up my head. i blended in with the crowd coming into the white house. >> you joined a tour. >> it was not really a tour. this is just people walking through. over here we have this painting and here is a piece of furniture. you got that and then there was a congressional tour. that was very special. this was the general public. i went down and they eventually put sh you out the front door. you go out on pennsylvania avenue. mind you, my bedroom was right above. shut your eyes and imagine the front of the white house. pennsylvania avenue. they have those big lanterns. that is where our rooms were. people would come through at 7 a.m. in the morning on these congressional tors and making a lot of noise. i was trying to sleep. i would imagine that my last day i would fill up a balloon with water and drop it. [laughter]in the end, i was much more mature then, so i did not do it. i decided i would go out. i walked out on pennsylvania avenue and got to the gate. there i was. they walked me out. i thought, some secret service agent is going to get in trouble. i told them at the gate, i'm lynda johnson. you come a secret service agent and tell him i have escaped. -- call my secret service agent and tell him i have escaped. [laughter]they came out and found me and brought me home. in a serious moment, let me say that we did get a lot of threatening malil. a lot of crazy people right. any letter that came to us that would be opened and read, i decided i did have a few friends i wanted to hear from without having their letters expurgated. i decided i would tell them to write in code. they would put "special" on it. the secret service knew not to open it. it was a friend of mine. some of them started getting their letters back. [laughter] but that was my secret code. i escaped once, and after that i did not want to get the people in trouble. we had a lot of fun together. >> susan, what is your escape story? >> mine was a lot different from lynda's. i guess you could call it a contest with a secret service agent on who could outdo who. he challenged me. i have three older brothers. i'm used to being around men. it does not phase me. ask my husband and my stepsons. i can pin them to the floor. [laughter] anyway, he told me to come back in 24 hours. we will have this challenge. i said ok. i came back in 24 hours and we had a challenge. it was somewhat of an insult. i was in the west wing side of the house. i was in my car. you always had to leave your keys in car because if they had to move your car for an arrival or something like that, they always needed to have access to your car. so, i was insulted and i went running down the back stairs. >> us, too. >> my car is sitting out there with the keys in it. my agent is downstairs and does not realize i have made this maneuver. i get in my car. they had opened the gates because my mother was coming in from an event. they could not close it fast enough to stop me from leaving. [laughter] i get in my car and drive out. once i did, i thought, oh no. now what do i do? at the time, i was going to mount vernon college. it was down the street. one of my remit was in class. i drove over to the school -- one of my classmates was in class. i drove over to the school. i was waiting to her. she asked, where is everybody? i say, i ditch them. [laughter] what are we going to do? i do not know. we went to a parking lot on foxhole road. i do not know if it is still there. we bought a sixpack of beer because the drifting agent washington was 18 at the time and i was 18. inthe drinking age washington was 18 at the time and i was 18. i picked up the phone, in which you had to use a payphone in those days, and i call the command post post. i said, this is susan. i will be back by seve7. i'm not alone. i walked back into the man coast that afternoon. -- command post that afternoon. i said, what time do we need to leave for the concert? let's just get over this part and get to the concert. they said your father would like to see you. [laughter] i was like, this is not good. this is not going well. we went to constitution hall first. i dropped my roommate off. i was living in a townhouse in arlington at the time. constitution hall was down the street. we go back to the white house. my parents were having dinner. i walk in. mother goes, what are you all talking about? no one has told her what happened that i disappeared for about three hours that afternoon. that kind of said, that is not appropriate. no one will get in trouble, but n please do not do that again. >> did you go to the concert? >> i did. when they played "she is gone" it had meaning for me. [laughter] >> lucy, my little sister was in high school at that time. when she had a big birthday, she said what she wanted was a day away from the secret service. he said, i cannot give that to you. bylaw, secret service have to protect the president, the first lady, and the family. when daddy was vice president, that is when they changed the law. imagine what it would have been like if they had not change the law. the law was changed to include the vice president. lucy did not get her day free from the secret service. >> anything but not that. you have both had many unique experiences. i believe the only prom held in the white house and a few weddings. >> it was very exciting. the previous a big wedding was longworth. princess alice they called her. in our day, she was the cat's meow. she had a pillow that says if you do not have anything nice to say about anybody, come and sit next to me. [laughter] she was wonderful to listen to as long as she was not telling you anything bad about you. she came to our wedding. she was fascinating. imagine teddy roosevelt's daughter. talk about a rebel. suzanne and i were just pussycats. her father said, you may not smoke under my roof. so she smoked on the roof. [laughter] she has a little green snake that was called emily spinach, which he put on her shoulder. mind you, you are talking about 1910 or 1908, that time. she was really something. of course i thought she was a great role model. >> i get a note from her when we moved into the white house and it said, "have a hell of a good time." [laughter] i photographed her and you interviewed her. >> i wrote it and she photographed it. we had fun. 1976. it was about the presidential children. it was amazing the number of us that were still alive. no one had ever heard about them. for instance, in 1976, grover cleveland's daughter who was the only child ever born in the white house was still alive. we went to see her. just to show you how important we are, the story -- she told us a story of how she came back several years later to the white house to show her husband the white house. she went to the gate and explained and said, "i was born here." the guard said, "we hear that story all the time." [laughter] she did not get the tour. alice longworth, we got to be great buddies. i was giving the granddaughter a tour. there was a most beautiful portrait. here we know that taft was our heaviest president. 350 pounds. they could not get a regular bath tub. it was interesting that this beautiful portrait of mrs. taft over here. she has an hourglass figure and her husband was the heaviest president. alice said, she never look like that. she had her head painted on somebody else's body. [laughter] well, let me tell you, susan and daughter.s she had been president of -- i forgot, one of the sister schools -- there she had a portrait, a photograph of her mother and father on the 25th wedding anniversary in the white house. you know what? she did not look like that. she had nice, sagging bosoms. a lovely lady, but she did not look like that lady in the portrait. [laughter] ever since then, i have been wanting to get the same person to do me. [laughter] but you know, this is full circle. i was a history major. it fascinates me that in the old days, that is what portraits artist would do. literally from here to here, you could get the prettiest dress and which way you wanted to be looking and so forth. they put your head on it. >> that is one way to do it. they can do that with photoshop. good idea. it takes less time. i want to get more into prom. that is the ultimate teen fantasy to have a prom in the white house. >> to have your prom in the white house is absolutely amazing. i did not come up with the idea. the prom committee came up with the idea. they came to me and said, is this possible? i said, i do not know. i went to the usher's office. it does sort of the concierge between the family and the staff and the west wing and the east wing and that sort of thing. they said, i guess it is the same idea as long as you pay for the beverages and the food and the staff that will serve and do all of that stuff. that is exactly what our class did. it happened that the white house. you do not have to pay to rent the room. that is true. every parent wanting to come and be the chaperone. -- wanted to come and be the chaperone. what we did is we picked teachers that we wanted to be our chaperones. i went to an all girls school. i had a class of 74 girls. everybody came and brought a date. that is probably a first for most prompts. -- proms. we had a good time. we try to get the beach boys to be the band because they were the hot in tha -- hot thing then . we ended up getting two local bands to play. >> do you remember their names? >> i have no clue. going to get to questions in a little bit. i imagine a surreal aspect of living in the white house is that dissidents between outside and inside. in your president's second term with the protest and your husband serving overseas and error father agonizing over the war and the protesters say -- serving overseas in the war and your father agonizing over the war and processed are saying, what was that like? >> it was horrible. hey, hey, lgbj, how many kids dd you kill today? it was terrible. i know my father was trying to do everything he could to get he's. we tried to get people to the peace table. -- i know my father was trying to do everything he could to get peace. we try to get people to the peace table. as much as he hated it personally, he had to respect them for caring that much. we know that a certain portion of people were not committed, but it was a big party. there are always some people who just hang out to be in the know . it was very painful. we were having protests from southerners who were unhappy about the civil rights. we had people who were unhappy about the war. i told chuck, you took the easy way out. you went to vietnam in 1968. when you think about what happened in 1968, all of you if you were born then, it was a year from hell. we have the north koreans sure one of our ships. we had washington burning. it was just awful. but lucinda was born. something good about the year. >> susan, on a different scale, your father has been vindicated in history for pardoning richard nixon. at the time, there was a lot of popular blowback. it went below 50%. what was your perspective at that time? did you encounter people who would mentor their displeasure question mark --their displeasure? >> i did. you could hear the demonstrators from 1600 pennsylvania avenue, which is the north side of the white house. these demonstrators were more about the pardon and that kind of thing. people would come up to you. here is another example -- you have two women trying to assassinate my father and my mother trying to get the equal rights amendment passed. my mother did not understand why women are trying to kill you when i'm trying to change things for women. that was one of the big things out there. people were rude. what is the point of coming up to a child of a president and spouting off in a direction like that? we as children did not ask to be there. we cannot really change the policy. the person you need to go to is your senator or congressman or write to the president and vice president themselves. it is interesting to watch the american public to you as a family member and somebody who has lived in the white house. it is interesting to be on the other side of it. >> lynda, legacy question. we will get to questions in a second. it is clear the controversy over vietnam and your father's legacy over civil rights will grow with time. healthcare though is a specific part of your father's legacy that we are now debating in real-time. what are your thoughts about the debate we are having given your father's accomplishments in that area? >> there are a lot of people from both parties who work together. that was a time when the country, even if you disagreed with someone, you wanted government to work. [applause] we have this feeling of gotcha. this is going to hurt you kind of thing rather than talking about issues and saying you want this and i want. can't we find a middle ground? can't we find a way to agree on things and do what we agree upon? we lived in a glory time. -- gory time. it was pretty generic. it is not very nice now. i am glad my husband is out of politics. i would not want to be in it now. one of the things that susan and i have found and i found this with julie and the other presidential children, i think that we have been there and we know what it is like. to some extent i think we protected each other. we sympathize, at least i have tried not to give advice to other people unless i am asked because we know how tough it is. i hope that my father's legacy of healthcare and head start and elementary and secondary education -- before that, if you were handicapped, your parents had to educate you. if you were blind, tough. that was your problem. now with that law, you had to get federal aid to people who were handicapped so they could go to school. it was an obligation as a country to try to raise everybody up, regardless of your color, how much money you made. yes, we were very ambitious. we knew that not everything we did in those days was going to last forever and that they would be tampered with. that is the way it is in this country. we pass laws and we modify them and we change them. we adapt to the times. but we try. daddy was a teacher by heart. he would be so proud that our youngest daughter is a high school math teacher. never make money, but you influence a lot of lives. fortunately we can -- if you month the best teachers, you do have to pay them better. -- if you want the best teachers, you have to pay them better. [applause] i am hoping that history will remind people of some of the good things that we did do and know that whatever he did to try, do not question people's motives. you might disagree with what they did and say that they made mistakes here and should have done this, but i try not to question their motives. they did this because they wanted to. they were getting paid or someone influence them. i think that the people we elect are better than that. there'll always be some people that let you down. to tell you how important we are, my daughter told me about a conversation he had -- she had. the person said, tell me, what are you doing here? she said, my mother is speaking. she and susan ford will be speaking tomorrow. they are going to be about life in the white house. uh-huh. lucinda went on to say, my grandfather was president lyndon johnson. the person said, what did he do? what did this teaches you -- .> susan, your father's legacy he has been vindicated on so many fronts. what are the specifics that you think history has not yet given him enough credit for? the ways his influence has echoed? it might be legislation or the strength of the example he set. >> talk about your mother. >> you could talk about betty ford. >> she was his soulmate for 50 years. it is one of those things that kind of gets lost in the shuffle. the berlin wall -- not a lot of people credit the berlin wall coming down. that is one of them. i think he got criticized a lot for the pardon of richard nixon. but he was given a current award before his dad dan tow. it was an unbelievable -- courage award before his death. it was an unbelievable honor for him. [applause] at the time, woodward and bernstein criticized, but he knew in the long run it was the right thing to do and for our nation to heal, it had to happen. if we were going to take a president and go through the whole ross s, -- of the whole process, our country would not be where it is today. that is one of them. the things my mother did as far as bringing press counselor out of the closet and doing so much for women -- [applause] and women oppose the health issues. it was also later after they left the white house in what she did for drug and alcohol addiction. [applause] those are the things that stand out in my mind. the bicentennial, lynda mentioned 1976. the you're the bicentennial was an unbelievable experience. -- the year of the bicentennial was and am a believable experience -- an unbelievable experience. the tall ships were amazing. it made you proud to be an american. >> we are going to take some of your questions. that was absolutely wonderful. but continue with questions. >> give your questions to the ushers so they can get it up to me. lynda, you had a mother to. would you like to tell us about her? >> mother said she was elected by one person. she tried to help him. he knew that she would always tell him the truth. she did not want anything from him. she was a great guide. she would tell me over -- he would tell me over and over again, i want you to be like your mother. she was the most perfect woman he had ever met. second maybe be owing to his mother. -- second may be only to his mother. [laughter] she recognize what teddy roosevelt said about the bully pulpit. she is in a place of a lot of tension. you might as well use it for something you care about. she worked very hard on head start and the environment. she was next to johnny appleseed. if she was right behind him. this is her 100th birthday year. for 70th birthday, she gave the money to start the national wildflower research center so that if you want to know about the wildflowers and the native plants in your area, you can go on the internet and we can tell you what would be best for oregon or the things native to oklahoma that will grow the best in the heat that they have and the lack of water. what will do best in for monti? -- vermont? let's encourage our national environment. it is much cheaper. she was a penny incher. -- pincher. frugal is a better word. she believed that having those native plants on the highway would remind us of the beauty that god gave us. it was a lot cheaper not to be planting roses out there or something that would not come up next year. when you see those little signs about forgive us for not mowing, but we are waiting for the seeds to go into the ground, it is saving you money. it is wonderful. we have a wonderful wildflower center that has been named after her. she finally let us do it. she did not want it named after her, but the ladybird johnson -- we are going to do a children's garden so we can teach them about why they should do it. we recycle all of our water. for 30 years -- i am very proud of the legacy of mother. what you have to realize is she had many, many years of productivity after daddy died. besides taking care of the lbj library and school and all of his legacies, which he has now left on our shoulders, lucy and i really miss her. we are trying to carry on the tradition that she was such a trailblazer in. [applause] >> question to both of you -- how did the presidential children reach out to one another? is there a children of the presidents club? >> that is one of the things that lynda and i was talking about. we both kind of zip our mouths shut. we became friends over the years, plus our parents were friends. the relationship goes way back, just like the nixon girls. we were in the same era growing up. lynda has hosted several of us at her home. there are many things we can learn from each other. how to deal with foundations and libraries and museums and the park service and how does the family work with those organizations and still keep it your own and continue these legacies? so, those are the more difficult things to do. the is your thing is to sit around and talk about which room you had and who was your chef and what was your favorite meal and two was your favorite head of state or entertainment when you were there? >> i would love to say that i was a bosom buddy of everybody, all of the former first children, but not everybody. let me tell you, come to the lbj library in november. we are going to have a panel on first children. i think we have three bushes. that is a lot of bushes. they say, yes, but they have two presidents. one of susan's mothers are coming. hopefully we will have a lot more stories. -- one of susan's brothers are coming. hopefully we will have a lot more stories. my goodness gracious, all of the wonderful things she has, what is she complaining about? we all want to hear stories that we will not read in the paper tomorrow. it is a friendship in which you can tell the things that have happened, both good and bad. watergate, for instance. check and i used to play bridge with julie davis -- julie and david. they knew, why would we want to do anything like that? we used to play bridge with them. it was mutual. it was also a support society. chuck and i were honored to be invited to president ford's funeral and betty ford's funeral in california. we are a big family. >> have either view reached out out to the obama girls? have you speculated on what it is like to be first children at their age? >> no, because i have not been asked. they do not have to worry about dating. [laughter] even so, they are still pretty young. susan was in her prime. [laughter] i was also. late bloomer, but i was still in there. to some extent, i think some of the young man i would meet would want to talk to secret service and have nothing to do with me. you go out with someone at the next day there'd be something in the papers. the poor fellow disappointed to go to the movies. -- just wanted to go to the movies. we have the advantage of age and some judgment. for the obama children, they are young and very protected by their families. they're not quite out front. i hope they are making lots of friends at the schools they are going to. they seem to be doing it. everything i read, that is all i know. because of the senate connection, once a year the senate spouses have a lunch for the first lady. i had the opportunity to see i guess all of the first ladies since we left washington. i wish them well. i hope that they enjoy it. i hope they learn and take every advantage of opportunity. you can meet so many interesting people. you can learn so much from living there. i have tried to take advantage of it. >> to follow up, i had the advantage of traveling to china with my parents when i was a freshman in college. it was long ago. i got to meet the chairman. my dad used to tell the story of walking through the receiving line. you did not know when you would meet the chairman. you would need to get into the car. our work is endure would say -- dr. kissinger would say we're going to the palace and meet the chairman at the time. my parents took his hand and then i shook his hand. in the picture, his eyes were lit up. he was known to like women. this picture that i have with him with his eyes lit up like a man who has risen up from the dead and the smile on his face that he is so glad to see this tall blonde woman in china -- when you say you have met some amazing people, that is what you mean. >> did you have secret service code names? >> yes. my name was panda. all of our names was p's. one brother was professor. i cannot remember what the other two were. >> we were l's. daddy was leader. no, i take it back. we were v's. i was venus. i'm just teasing. [laughter] venus is what i wanted to be. lucy was venus. mother was victoria. she thought victoria was stuffy , but later on when i grew up and got married and we had a costume party with the theme of come as your favorite costumed lovers, my mother was victoria. she came with a picture of albert. she was wonderful as victoria. >> what was chuck? >> he was not anything. i was velvet. lucinda was velveteen. wonderful. we loved it. i loved my secret service agents. i kept up with all of them. one of them recently stepped down. he was head of the security. you probably remember him saying, mr. speaker, the president of the united states. anyway, the important thing you learn is it does not matter in the white house. it is the usher. he is the one who will let you in on the tour. bill, i need a parking spot. can you get me in? keep up with all of those friends. >> and we are back to parking. ladies and gentlemen, john avlon, susan ford bales, and lynda johnson robb. [applause][captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ >> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with horses that are bringing about the suffering. >> the white house is a bully all. . it you need to take -- a bully pulpit. you need to take advantage of it. >> somebody have their own agenda. >> i think they serve at the window on the path to what is going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidant. she is only -- the only one in the world he could trust. >> a lot of them were writers. >> there were in many cases more human beings than their husbands. >> dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. >> dolly madison loved every minute of it. munro hated it. -- monroe hated it. >> you cannot rule without including what women want and have to contribute. >> too much looking down and i think it was a little bit too fast. >> he is probably the most tragic role. >> she wrote in her memoir said she never made any decision. i only decided what was important and planned to present it to my husband. that is a lot of power. >> part of the battle against cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way that we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. >> i do not know how many presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way that we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded of all of the people who have lived there before and all of the women. >> first ladies influence and image, a new series on c-span. reduced in cooperation with the white house historical association. coming in february 2013. >> president obama pardoned the national thanksgiving turkey in a ceremony in the rose garden. it is the 65th time a president has done so. the 2012 national thanksgiving turkey cobbler and his alternate gobbler were raised on a farm in virginia. this is the first time the winner of the white house pardon was selected online on the white house facebook page. this is about 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. [turkey gobbles] they say that life is about second chances. this november, i could not agree more. in the spirit of the season, i have one more gifted to give. it goes to a pair of turkeys named cobbler and gobbler. the american people have spoken. these birds are moving forward. [laughter] love this bird. now i joke, but for the first time in our history, the winners of the white house turkey pardon were chosen through a highly competitive online vote. once again, nate silver completely nailed it. [laughter] the guy is amazing. he predicted these guys would win. i want to thank everyone who participated in this election. because of your bow, the only cobbler anyone is eating this thanksgiving will come -- vote, the only cobbler anyone is eating this thanksgiving will come with ice cream. the chairman of the national thanksgiving turkey foundation raise this beautiful bird in virginia. here is steve. [applause] and as always, if for some reason can't work cannot fulfill his duties as the official white house turkey, gobbler will be waiting in the wings. from here these two lucky birds or be swept up in a whirlwind of fame and fortune that will ultimately lead them to mount vernon where they will spend their twilight years in the storied home of george washington. later today, my family will be taking to turkeys that were not so lucky to a local food bank here in washington, d.c. i want to thank the turkey farms in pennsylvania for detonating these birds -- donating these birds. i encourage everyone to do what they can to help families who are in need of help for thanksgiving this year. friends and families are celebrating as uniquely american holiday. it is a chance to spend time with people we love and think about how lucky we are living in the greatest nation on earth. it is also a time to remember those who are less fortunate. this year that is true for our neighbors in the northeast to have lost their homes, possessions, and even loved ones to hurricane sandy. in the last few weeks i have had the chance to visit new jersey and new york. i have seen entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, but i have yet to find a broken spirit. countless stories of compassion and resilience have emerged in the aftermath of the storm. the one that comes to mind is about a tree on staten island. it is a giant blue spruce that came crashing down on eight yard -- aya yard. today if you go to that street, you will see a lot of debris scattered, but you also see the top of that tree standing tall in front of his house. it is decorated with ornaments that survived the storm, along with anything that his neighbors could find, including cups and safety goggles. it is a christmas tree. it reminds the neighborhood there will still be holidays to celebrate and holidays -- happy memories to share. life will be rebuilt. tomorrow we give thanks not only for the things that we have or the people that we love, but for the spirit that sees us through the toughest times and holds us together as one american family guided along our journey by the hope of better days. i hope that this holiday weekend we are also thinking about our extraordinary men and women overseas who are serving far away from home in harms way, but the reason they are there is because they give thanks too for the extraordinary life we have in the united states of america. my god bless those men and women in uniform who are away from their families this holiday season. may god bless the american people. may you all have a happy thanksgiving. with that, we will bestow the official pardon on -- is he gobbler or cobbler? gobbler. look at this. is he doing all right? you want to give it a shot? [turkey gobbles] you are pardoned. congratulations. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] we do not want to overdo it for him. ♪ [applause] [applause]

Transcripts For CSPAN Politics Public Policy Today 20121204

it is the duty of our government to do things for people that they cannot do themselves. the rich can do for themselves. the poor people cannot. i'll hang up and listen. host: let's go to curtis dubay. guest: we keep hearing about infrastructure investment. but the way we do that is federal gaps. the 65 cents of every dollar raised for the federal gas tax actually goes to roads and bridges and highways. the rest of it goes to things that are not supposed to be funded by the attacks. sustainability projects, bike paths, roadside museums. i would much rather see us spending all of the money on infrastructure and then come back in five or 10 years and say, well, maybe then. we are spending the money on infrastructure. it is a weak argument. host: let's go to laura. caller: i have two comments to make. the first is, the bush tax cut entitlements were supposed to be temporary. i remember when they were argued, and as far as i'm concerned, republicans live at that time. they never intended it to be temporary. they intended it to starve the government, which is a constitutional government. that makes me very angry. the other point i have to make is that i'm one of the long- term unemployed. right now, all of these discussions are noise. the root cause problem is a lack of jobs and offshore in that has gone unchecked since 2000. if i do not have a job, i cannot contribute to my country. if i do not have a job, i cannot pursue life, liberty, and have it is. i cannot raise my child or pay for my house her i cannot do anything because there is no revenue coming in. all i hear are the republicans wining about the upper 2% not having their golf money. host: laura calling in from austin, texas. earlier we talked but the bush tax cuts and whether they were indeed intended to be temporary or not. the loopholes, are they intended to be temporary? are they here to stay? guest: they were intended to be permanent. you cannot underestimate how hard it would be to cut those. this is why republicans are reluctant to propose this was a big changes. you need to get that money from the high end of the bush tax cuts and then see what reform you can propose. host: let's hear from charles in georgia. democrats line. caller: i want to know why it is so difficult for the 2% to pay their fair share. everyone is saying they have generated jobs. i have not seen a job generated yet. host: you take itemize deductions? caller: i am a military retiree. since i retired, the jobs have just not been here. this is the president came back into office complex it is coming back slowly around. they keep talking about jobs, but i have not seen any. host: the second caller in a row complaining about the idea that the wealthiest americans will not let go of their bush era tax rate. guest: i do not like to talk about fair share because there is very subjective. but let's look up the numbers. the president said people over the $1 million tax rates should pay a higher percentage, the so-called about the role. according to the cbo, the top 1% is paying an effective tax rate that is three times higher than the middle class. viewers can make their own decision as to whether that is fair. break down the federal income taxes. again, that is 40%. by comparison, if you had a flat tax, if they owned 20% of income, they would pay 20%. and back to job creation, we will get less job creation. we are talking are raising taxes on small businesses and investors. guest: governor romney tried to make the case that occurred as is making. it has failed miserably. it has failed in history. if it fails from campaign economics. the bush tax cuts disproportionately benefit high- income people. if we get rid of those we will save a lot of money and there is minimal risk to the short term income. high income, whether you are with a wall street bond trader or a ceo of a corporation, they tend to be less vulnerable to the ups and downs of their income and middle class people. we need to support those people. that will lock in savings again. host: next caller. caller: why can't we do away with the federal reserve? if they don't have borrowing power, they do not have debt. that we cannot borrow money from china. let's do away with it. everybody buckle down for a decade and let's get this thing came down. host: let's go to our next caller in massachusetts. the democrats line. caller: looking at the fiscal cliff, we go back to 2001 with the lowering of the tax rates, meant to create jobs. but in the past 10 or 11 years, we have not had any job creation whatsoever. we keep going back and hearing over and over again that it's going to cost jobs. we do not have jobs to begin with. businesses are out to make money. if consumers do not have money to spend, then you can lower their taxes to 0%. they still cannot spend because they do not have any income. guest: i think that is a great point. it brings up one thing we have not mentioned yet. the payroll tax cut is about to expire. if that expires, every paycheck in the country is going to go down about $1,000 on january 1st. that would hurt consumption. it would hurt the customers of businesses. the president has proposed to extend that. i think that is reasonable. we will see a firm public and keep up their opposition or they give in. we have a sleeper here that cannot be ignored. if we do not extend that, every paycheck in the country is going to go down. guest: i agree. we should extend that for another year. it would be a big hit to the middle class paychecks. we are in no position to be hurting the middle class at this point. until now, there has been bipartisan agreement that would probably be allowed to expire. the president has changed his calculation on that in the past week. i think that would be smart. host: in looking at the mortgage and real-estate deductions, you can see by category who benefits and how it breaks down. you can see how much money they get for their tax return. in dark blue we see the mortgage interest deduction and a light blue, the real estate tax deduction. we are talking about loopholes and deductions as part of the so-called fiscal cliff. ron in indiana. caller: the first young fellow. the question that i wanted to ask. everybody is talking about raising taxes on the job creators and they will not create jobs. these bush tax cuts have been in place. how long will it take to see the job? host: what do you think of the deductions? you think they have been a part of the tax code lot of that americans cannot do without them? caller: some of them need to be part of the negotiations. middle class people, we cannot. forget them. but the upper class, they get the big tax cut. the middle class does not hardly see these deductions. and especially those that give you these deductions, they give you loopholes. host: let's go to curtis dubay to get a response to that. our caller was talking about if you have the means to hire someone that has the ability to look through the deductions you can get a much better break. is it fair? guest: if you do not have someone to show you how to do it, it can be hard to take them. but for the most part, most people will take the standard deduction. they do not need to hire someone to take itemize deductions that they will not be able to take any way. that is the point of the bush era tax policies not creating jobs. if you look at where we were back then, we were in recession when these tax cuts went into effect. they were always meant to be permanent. there were supposed to help the economy help growth going forward. we had a recession as part of the last decade. we have fairly strong growth from 2003 through 2007. we are still feeling the fallout from that today. raising tax rates on job creators and small businesses will cut back on job creation. we will see those who would have otherwise gone back to work failing to get a job going forward. guest: most small businesses are small. 97% of small businesses, their portions are tied to the middle class. it is important for their tax cuts to be extended. it is much less important for the high-income people to have theirs extended. if you're talking about the ceo who wants to play golf and also by a vote, maybe there could be more incentive to play golf, and work a little less. what economists find is the the work ethic for the high-income people is not very sensitive at all to the change in tax rates. that is why the cbo says that if the high end tax cuts go away, growth rates will only be affected by one-tenth of 1%, which is a tiny fraction of the affect on the middle class. host: someone writes in, if the tax rate did not hurt small businesses, then why should it now? and here is another. guest: basically, 2% or 3% of small businesses would pay the higher number. most small businesses are people selling items out of their basement on e-bay. those that create jobs, they are in the 2% of small businesses. they would pay higher rates that president obama is proposing. it would be a direct hit on job creation. and over and talk about raising tax rates at the top, it is not because we are worried about whether the rich can buy an extra vote. we are worried about their ability to invest in the economy. host: let's hear from mary in topeka, kansas. caller: i had a couple of comments. and then maybe let them answer. one, a republican, but i guess i'm not a very loyal one because at this point, between the republicans and the democrats, i am totally fed up with what comes across on the national news. both sides seem to be spinning the truth into lies for their own political gain. we need a solution that is not 25 years away. but i do not know how it is going to be done when the president -- and as far as i can see, he has not even sat down for a talk that lasts more than an hour or so. he has other people doing is talking and expects the republicans to try to make a deal. you cannot make a deal with a third party and then have a first party reject everything on the plan and never sit down and discuss it. you cannot make a deal when you are not doing face-to-face talks. host: what do you think should be up for negotiation? and things like deductions in taxes? caller: i'm self-employed. i cannot make enough money working a regular job. and my employers will not pay me a livable wage. and not only that, they do not want to give me, 40 hours a week. they want to give me 38 and pay $9 an hour. host: if you can broaden that out, chuck, and talk about negotiations in general. how much should the american public know about how much the mortgage deduction is on the chopping block? guest: i think they should know everything. both sides should be specific and public, which is what the president has done. theas said, let's make middle class tax cut permanent. he has said we need to lock in the savings. he has said that the higher income deductions need to be cut. he has said to trim medicare, but in a modest way. republicans are trying to protect the very popular high- end bush tax cuts. how do they make that up? they cut mortgage deductions that we've been talking about, and medicare. and they want to cut both of those, but it seems they are afraid to say that. if the republicans do not want to let the high end push tax cuts sunset, how will they make up that money? how much from medicare? how much from the mortgage deduction, a charitable deduction? people deserve to know that. host: here is a tweet. we need a flat tax and stop all the flap in. guest: that would be great. we have a flat tax at the heritage foundation. you can see it at the website. there has been an effort in the last couple of weeks to broaden the negotiation to something bigger than a grand bargain. i think that is largely misplaced. let's focus on the issues that are most pertinent right now, which is the expiring tax cuts. let's focus to what matters by the end of the year. host: thank you both for joining us. >> a bunch of reporters were called into a closed-door briefing today. >> it would be about $2.20 trillion. that is on top of what has already been enacted. $800 billion in new tax revenue the republicans --republicans say it would come from tax reform, but not to increasing tax rates. that has been a sticking point thus far in negotiations. >> you are talking about the bush tax rates? >> all of the bush era tax rates would be extended into next year and that would start the process for tax reform. it would be in the tax reform process that there would generate -- and they would generate $800 million -- $800 billion in revenue. and they say the $800 billion could be raised without raising tax rates, and this is something that is in dispute with the white house. the white house said there would be no deal unless republicans agreed to increase tax rates on the wall the next year. >> what do the republicans say about the debt limit, sequestration, automatic spending cuts, and changes to entitlement programs? >> that was not addressed. the white house offered to make permanent the changes. republicans are not proposing to raise the debt limit at all. but if you ask their aides, they told us that the speaker would be open to increasing the debt limit, but he is sticking by his role that any increase must be accompanied by cuts and/or reforms. it could be on the table. entitlements, they are not laying out this was a big changes to medicare and medicaid. what they are saying is they want the $600 billion in health savings. they mentioned things that had been mentioned for about a year-and-a-half. including waving the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and the wealthy will either pay more premiums, or receive less in that if it's a ban to other american -- in benefits that other americans. the only change to social security that they're proposing is something that has come up repeatedly in these negotiations, which is a change to the way the benefits year over year are calculated. changes to the way inflation is calculated and the way that would reflect the social security, medicare, and a range of other policies. that is something that liberals have not opposed. it has been broached often in these negotiations. >> what is the gop presenting for spending cuts? gregg's that is not something they are specifically offering. the sequestered about 10 years and $1.20 trillion. they are offering $2 trillion in the next 10 years. everybody is talking about the way to replace the sequester is to find alternative cuts and other reforms that would equal or exceed that $1.20 trillion. republicans are pretty much presuming that this offer, if accepted, the sequester would also be eliminated at the same time. >> house republicans given any ground based on this proposal? >> it is essentially overturned. it is very similar to what erskine bowles, the former clinton chief of staff, who was the co-leader of the simpson- bowles commission, separate from that commission, mr. bowles testified before the super committee last year and testified at that time. republicans say that their current model is modeled after that offer. the simpson-bowles model has gone on lot of talk in the last two years. it is proposed on democrats in these discussions. on the revenue side, but $800 billion that they are offering, that is the same of what speaker john vader, offered the president in their negotiations -- speaker john boehner offered the president in their negotiations in 2011. the white house has consistently signaled a loss of of weeks that they will not accept any deal that keeps tax rates for the wealthy. >> russell burma is a staff writer for the hill. thank you. >> thank you. >> and you can go to our website c-span.org to read the letter that the president wrote to house rubble can survey. journal" iston goura live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. the greatest threat to national and economic security is dependent on foreign oil according to a new survey. -- report. >> this weekend on c-span 3, the city prepares to mark the dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945. >> everybody has their own view of what happened. i do not want to argue. i think we are past that. my whole purpose for being here is to honor the dead and listen to to to accommodate what i can to say this as the happen again. >> we will be joined in washington to discuss meetings. >> the members of congress were told -- the committee also heard from advocacy groups in this hearing. >> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. this hearing on 1 in 88 children looks into the federal response of rising rates will come to order. americans have the right to know the money washingotn takes from them is well-spent. americans deserve an effective and efficient government that works for them. our duty is to protect these rights. our solemn obligation is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we worked tirelessly with citizen watchdogs to bring genuine reform to federal bureaucracy. this is our mission and i might say today, in many cases, we're dealing with people because of this affliction who may never pay taxes but in fact their families and others paid for an entire life. congress spends a lot of time discussing and debating issues and determining by our philosophical beliefs with the role of government should be. as we have seen in these debates surrounding tarp, stimulus, health care reform, these kinds of issues oftentimes come down to where you fall on an ideological spectrum. today is no such thing. we're having a hearing focused on something that spans the ideological left to the ideological right. we're drawing attention to something that has no political affiliation, no partisan allegiance, and sometimes and we believe today not nearly enough focus on something that does not shorten life, but dramatically or even slightly but usually more than slightly reduces the quality of life, both for the individual and for their families. i am a father. as far as i know, i am one of the fortunate ones. i am not the 188. but right now, if the numbers are accurate and if they continue to grow from one in 88 as affected, we in fact have an epidemic. it could be that some of the one in 150 at the start of the previous century was too low and in fact people were simply not diagnosed. a few people believe that come in fact, there are not factors in our society and our behavior in the air we breathe, the water we consume or others that are affecting how many people will be afflicted. we will hear from a distinguished panel first of people who do this for a living, trying to get to the causes, prevention, i will secure today, but at least the treatment, -- i will not say fewer today, but at least the treatment and something to mitigate their suffering. i know they are frustrated. congress, although we put nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year directly into research, has not the dollars perhaps that can bring specific outcomes sooner. on our panel, in number of individuals will say that one of the problems is that we're looking on one side of the equation and not nearly enough on what to do for the victims. the fact is that they are all right. there is not enough money being placed on the various possible causes of autism. there's not enough steady. our government does not collect statistics as well as perhaps someday soon we will so that we can find out what the true number is, cross check every aspect of how that number came to be -- that number of human beings came to be afflicted. we have a lot to do. i will not claim that i have come here timely. this is the last few days of my first two years as chairman. and this is our first hearing. but i will promise you here today that we will stay involved in this issue. we will stay involved through task and through, if appropriate, additional hearings. i would also would say to our first distinguished panel said one of the prairies i have put forth today is that we work with you and help you with this process, that we be a conduit to the rest of congress on this important issue. in a few moments, i will be recognizing by unanimous consent in number of members who would not ordinarily be here at a hearing because they are involved in this issue but served on other committees. additionally, i want to apologize to all of those people who rightfully so would be well to be heard here today. i could have had a second panel of at least 20 witnesses, of organizations and affected individuals. we have the difficult job of selecting just six. and as the ranking member will undoubtedly agree, 6 is already a fairly large single panel. that is one of the reasons that i pledge you today that any organization or individual that, in the next seven days, provides to us as recorded by our rules in electronic format or, if you give it to us in paper we will try to scan it, we will include your statement and your information in the record. we will hold the record open so that the man you could not be heard live in testimony will in fact be at least in the record. i want to particularly recognize ryan hooker with focus autism, the american academy of children -- it is actually a long, long title. i am sorry. who in fact has been one of the people who has championed for today's hearing. and a number of others. i would also like to thank and we will be recognizing two members on each side -- the former chairman of the full committee who began the process of focusing on some aspects of this terrible disease. we do not know enough. our goal is to know more. today is of but a down payment on that. i want to thank the ranking member in putting together the hearing today and we will hear his opening statement pierre >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i do thank you for holding today's hearing. before i get started. i want to pay special note, as you have already done, to our friend who is leading, mr. burden. over my 17 years on this committee, this has been an issue that he has constantly put forth and constantly made sure that we tried to address it the best we could. so i would like to thank you for your vigilance. although you may be leaving the congress, as the chairman has said, we will continue to fight and i know you will, too. mr. chairman, we have learned much about autism spectrum disorders over the past decade. taxpayers-sponsored research have evaluated therapies with some symptoms. decisions now have a better understanding of the developmental kinds of symptoms that a line with earlier detection. investigators have come up with new methods and assisting children with autism. congress has held -- congress is also happy to help individuals with autism and families in significant ways. we passed the affordable care at, which includes the significant protections, where insurers may no longer impose a life term caps on coverage. new plans must include screening for autos and without additional parts to the plants. and young people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders may remain on their parents' health insurance plan until they are 26 years old. these are real and significant protection that will improve the lives of millions of american families. even with this progress, there is still more to learn and there is still more to do. while autism of fax all ratio -- autism affects all the ethnic and economic groups, delayed diagnoses cause minority children to be for the deaf -- for the behind in development in language and motor skills. we must be vigilant in early detection for all our children. as an early diagnosis can make the critical difference in the lifelong development of a child. we must also continue to invest federal research dollars in new and evolving therapies to improve the lives of those with autism spectrum disorders. in my district, we have the kennedy krieger institute, an internationally recognized institution dedicated to improving the lives of individuals with developmental disorders. these institutions improve the quality of life, education and continued development of those affected by what is a spectrum disorders and we must continue -- affected by autism spectrum disorders and we must continue to support them. there are many experts, individuals and groups who can help us in this effort. i want to take this moment to thank all of you for being here. as the chairman said, there are so many people interested in this issue, so many who wanted to speak. but i want to say to you what i said bob wright of autism speech earlier today. i think you for caring about somebody other than your children and ourselves. because what you're doing here today is raising this issue so that other children, other than those that may be in your own family, maybe your friends, will benefit in the future. you're touching the future and you're making it possible for those who are going through the optimism -- the hottest inspector disorders to have a better future. so -- the autism spectrin disorders to have a better future. so i urge you to stay the course. one thing i have learned in 17 years is that, in order for these causes to move forward, you have to keep banging the drum. and you must bang it louder and louder in presenting your case so that, after it is all over, as my mother would say, motion, commotion, emotion and no results. i want you to be successful in what you're doing. life is short. so we must try to use our energy so that we can get the best possible results. i am so glad the chairman said what he said about sticking with this, addressing it, and we encourage all of you to work with us as we move forward. mr. chairman, i think you. >> i thank the gentleman. now i recognize the former chairman of the full committee. >> let me start off by saying, contrary to what has been stated in the media over the years, i am not against vaccinations. i believe that vaccinations have a very important place in our society. they give us one of the best health regimens in the history of mankind. people live longer and have less diseased because we have vaccinations. what we have always opposed is putting toxic chemicals or medals in the vaccinations. the marisol contains mercury. when i was a boy, we used to have mercury in thermometers. and they said, if you break that thermometer and the mercury gets on your hands, as years went by, that was toxic. in indianapolis, we had a school where, in the chemical laboratory, in the health science room, they broke a vial that had some of it in it. they evacuated that school. the fire department came in with all kinds of equipment to make sure they were not exposed to it. women who are pregnant, they say don't eat fish that has mercury in it and they cautioned them, the that there is surgeonfish you can eat. there are all kinds of reasons not to be exposed to mercury. yet we continue to put it in vaccinations as a preservative. in 1929, they came up with for marisol. they tested it on 29 people who had meningitis. they all died of meningitis, but the the mercury in the vaccination was not a contributing factor. so since 1929, it has never been completely tested and they continue to use it in vaccinations. it was not so bad when wenchow got a vaccination or two or three. but now they -- when one child got a vaccination or two or three. but now they get 29. the brain tissues to not -- it stays in there and it causes severe problems. during my chairmanship, for six years, we had four years of hearings. we had people from all of the world, scientists from all over the world, doctors from every part of the united states who testified. and people from cdc and fda who testified that there is no evidence that it caused any neurological problems in people who are vaccinated. and then we kept on and we kept on and then we finally had people from fda and cdc who testified who said there is no conclusive evidence that the mercury in the vaccinations causes neurological disorders. no conclusive evidence. that word, conclusive, ought to stick in everybody's minds. what it means is that there is a possibility. and my question has always been and i am convinced that the mercury in vaccinations is a contributing factor in neurological diseases such as autism and alzheimer's. but that word, conclusive, there is no conclusive evidence, that creates a doubt. and my position has never been that, if there is any doubt that the mercury in vaccinations can cause a neurological problem, then get it out. you should not put mercury in any form in the human body, especially in children in vaccinations or in adults. when we get a vaccination for the flu, every year, we get a flu vaccination, we have thermerisol. they are injecting a certain amount of mercury in your body. and over time, i believe that it has an adverse affect on the neurological system. but let me just say that the thing we need to do is always err on the side of safety. if the pharmaceutical industry were to go to single-shot weyl's, that would eliminate the possibility -- single-shot vials, that would eliminate the possibility because it would not have any mercury in it. we passed the vaccine injury compensation act to compensate those people injured by vaccinations. it was something that people could work with to get that money. the pharmaceutical companies are putting money into that fund. but it is so hard for someone who has a damaged child or damaged an adult to get money out of that fund. it is unbelievable. we need to reevaluate the fund to make sure that people who were damaged by mercury in vaccinations have access to that they can at least have some compensation to help with the rest of their lives. these people will live 60-70 years and will be a burden not only on their families but on society itself. >> i now ask unanimous consent, mr. posey of florida, mr. burrows of georgia and mr. matheson of utah to be allowed to sit in and ask questions at the conclusion of the other seeded members. without objection, so ordered. it is now my pleasure to recognize the distinguished gentleman mr. davis. >> i thank you for calling this hearing. as one who has spent much of my adult life working as a professional in the areas of health planning, health research and delivery, i firmly believe that the federal government has an important role to help understand what is in spectrum disorders and -- understand autism spectrum disorders and to help those with its inner life span. i also want to commend the former chairman of this committee, my good friend dan burton, for using his position as chairman and beyond to focus on this particular issue and calls the committee and others to continuously take a hard look at it. i commend you for your efforts and certainly wish you well as you revert back to private life. i am very proud to represent a premier institution involved in the research and service provision of people with autism, specifically therapeutic schools and centers for autism research operated by the easter seals in my congressional district as a part of the illinois medical district, which is the largest medical district in the country. this one-of-a-kind facility is unique in the nation because it combines on a single campus educational, research, training, rudy intervention, is it early intervention, move to work transitions, and independent living capabilities. the continuum of services for persons with autism is impressive and it would help to advance the research-driven context for teaching, learning, and clinical and medical intervention related to autism. as an ardent advocate for persons with all types of disabilities, physical, mental, or developmental, i supported the provisions for protection in the affordable care act that protect families and individuals affected by autism spectrum disorder. i want to thank all of the witnesses for coming to join with us. mr. chairman, i think you for calling this hearing and i look forward to our discussion here this afternoon. i yield back pierre >> if the gentleman would yield his remaining -- i yield back. >> if the gentleman would yield his remaining time to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i remember well, as i am sure mr. burton does and as other members of this committee do, a time when a provision was snuck into a bill on a homeland security that essentially shielded from lawsuits the manufacturers of thermerisol. no one for the members who have been here in the last 10 years you were the provision came from. it came out of nowhere and it was buried in a conference report. i mention this because it is not as though we just discovered this matter. while i salute the chair for holding this discussion, my theory is that, while there are studies out there that implicate environmental factors, think about this for a minute. we know, as mr. burton laid out, the components of thermerisol, the stabilizer is mercury. we know that the mercury is more than a contaminant. is -- it can come in other than a liquid form. it can also be in held. women and to be talking about pharmaceutical manufacturers. -- we may not be talking about just pharmaceutical manufacturers. we could be talking about coal companies as well. we have 11 million others contributing millions of dollars to affect the outcome of elections. while i salute this chair for taking this time, because, at the bottom of this, you have special interest groups who would resist any deeper research on it because it will affect their bottom line. meanwhile, you have children all of the country turning up with autism. this is a new beginning. i salute the chair for making it. but this goes way beyond thermerisol and start thinking about cole. >> i now -- about coal. >> i will announce that, if any individuals would like to be in a little more comfortable situation, we do have an overflow room. if you will let our staff know, there will make sure that, if they gave up their seat here, they can go to the overflow room and be a little bit more comfortable for some of our guests. i now turn to our first panel. the distinguished doctor allan gutmacher is the director of the shriver institutes of health. i knew the name sake of your organization. and director colleen boil is of the center of birth defects and developmental disabilities at the cdc. pursuant to the requirements of this committee, will you please rise and take the oath? raise your right hand. do you both solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. let the record indicate that both witnesses answered in the affirmative. you are important witnesses and we will not stop you if you go slightly over. but we do have a large panel and we ask that you bear in mind that all of your opening statement in any extraneous mature a maybe -- may be entered into the record. with that, you are recognized pierre >> i am also a pediatrician a -- you are recognized. >> i am also a pediatrician. we authorized the authorization act of 2011. we think the congress for its continuing support of research and other activities regarding what is a spectrum disorders. that support made possible -- regarding autism spectrum disorders. possibleboard made support for families. the combination in degree of impairment very, from an array of conditions from what many will see as normal to significantly disabling. two decades ago, it was thought as rare. today, the cdc estimates show that it is a national health priority. the iadc plays a pivotal role in getting the government and the public and nonprofit organizations to address this. it includes individuals on the autism spectrum, parents and children of adults victims. we will come public comments at all committee meetings and invite public comments and hold town halls. it informs iacc recommendations. it is a committed group. while the law requires two meetings a year, they may need as many as 17 times a year. the law charged it with a strategic plan annually. we are drafting as always with autism committee influence an update to reflect the latest aspects in what is a research -- in autism research. over the past decade, research funding has grown substantially. investing $169 million in just the year 2011, three times more than 10 years ago. in 2009 and 2010, 120 two million dollars in an additional american recovery and investment act funds were also presented. as congress has emphasized, early diagnosis and and prevention is critical. these earliest changes ever recorded was six months and a number recent findings suggest that the factors causing it may operate very early in development. last year, researchers demonstrated that doctors often have a short questionnaire to screen inexpensive way in a child visit. another promising diagnostic tool is i gazed patterns specific to what is of -- is eye gaze patterns specific to autism. recent trials have validated early interventions and quality of life. recent behavioral interventions showed improved i q, language and social development in young children. and progress is also being manned intervention for adults. a recent study shows that, for the many adults who have impaired ability to recognize faces, a computerized training program improves facial recognition skills. many of the vances is a program that supports nine centers and networks across the country with two additional awards expected in 2013. the research covers a variety of lines, including nonverbal ase, an environmental risk factors in determining why it is five times more common among boys. we do not know the causes of asd, but we highlight the need to focus on both environment and genetics. we have established large networks to collect data and conduct powerful analyses. those networks explore possible causative factors in the environment before, during and after pregnancy. one of these networks published a study that suggests prenatal and early life exposure to car emissions is a factor. in 2012, congress appropriated over $47 million for autism and other developmental disorders. this supports 43 training programs through 41 states and projects for underserved populations. federal agencies also use public-private partnerships to maximize our, such as the nih national data office of research that has an autism depository. this brings together hundreds of researchers and clinicians with tens of thousands of people nationwide affected by asd. there is a call center, web based -- the nih supported the association in the early prevention of autism. in conclusion, since the establishment, wide expertise has come to bear on autism with research rapidly translating into individuals and the community. coordinated efforts to identify best practices to support the lifelong education, health and employment needs of the people in the spectrum. thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on such an important topic. >> thank you, doctor. >> good afternoon >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i am an epidemiologist. cdc works to keep america safe from health risks of all kinds. our 2012 what is and budget is about $21 million. today, i -- our 2012 autism budget is about $21 million. today, i will explain how that is used. asd is a group of developmental disorders. while there is no known cure, research is yielding innovative screening close to detected in that early childhood and new behavioral therapies that can improve outcomes. cdc data indicate that more children are being identified then previous years. the toll is significant and has profound implications for the affected children and their families. cdc works steadfastly to alleviate this burden by tracking asd, promoting the early identification and addressing the unanswered questions we research. cdc supports asd surveillance and tracking in 12 states -- utah, colorado, arizona, missouri, wisconsin, north carolina, new jersey, maryland, south carolina, arkansas, alabama and georgia. the goal is to provide comparable population-based data. in much of this year, cdc released updated efforts based on the 2008 did it indicating that one in 88 children had been identified with an asd. this is > the one in 10 released in the 2006 -- that is greater than the 110 released in 2006. we know it is at least in part to improved diagnosis and increased recognition. the adam network provides more than just prevalence estimates. we know that asd remains most common in boys than in girls. we know that the largest increase of the kind is among hispanic and african-american children and children without intellectual disabilities. we know there is a privilege that varies widely from 1 in to 10 to 1 in -- from 1 in 210 and 1 in 147. every day, our children need help and our data is helping to provide that. cdc works to increase early identification by offering free tools and assistance through our learning assigned act program. we provide tools to help professionals, health care providers and parent's with a focus on minority and physically disadvantaged populations. national goals in early screening, diagnosis and service and roman give communities and the federal government a benchmark to measure progress. we must first understand the risk factors. the cdc studies explore early development and it is the largest study of asd in the country and it involves sites in georgia, north carolina, massachusetts, iowa, california and pennsylvania. cdc works to find factors that put children at risk, including genetics, environmental, maternal health and behavioral factors with special emphasis on the interaction between environment and genetic factors. we are an active member in the coordinating committee and we provide that epidemiologic perspective. our activities are key components of that plan. asd is an important and immediate public health concern. more children than ever are being identified and families and communities are struggling with the financial burden. we know it is frustrating to have more questions than answers. and we share that frustration and are committed to improving our understanding of what is putting our children at risk. cdc will continue to document the burden of asd in states through our adam network, develop resources and help states improve early dedication throughout our learning science early first program. thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and i would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you both. i will recognize myself first. i will ask the experts to forgive me for being very basic in a couple of questions. but i hope it sheds a balance on this hearing. as far as you know, is autism in history predate all vaccines? was their optimism before there were vaccines? -- was their autism before there were vaccines? >> i would refer to my colleague but i would say definitely. >> autism was not describe until 1943. he first noticed 11 individuals with similar patterns of behavior is and he coined the term autism. >> but were those likely or documented lay -- i want you to say with certainty or with likelihood. i think it is important for all people who are dealing with this. >> i know that dr. connors view and others is that this possibly existed before. just no one had noticed the patterns. there are descriptions of individuals before the immunization era who would have what we would take today to be autism spectrum type disorder. there is heavy suspicion that it existed before vaccination. >> is it fair to say that today, the state of science is that atutims of various types have -- that autism of various types has several causes. >> absolutely. genetic, biological, and enviornmental. >> i am trying to be very basic and i apologize. but i think for all of us, as we go through this, it is important to build on something. so it is fair to say that autism, like cancer or other diseases, is often a group of afflictions. meaning that, although the characteristics are similar, there are multiple causes and likely multiple treatment and multiple forms of prevention. >> i think it is not only fair to say, but as simple as that question may be, the most important question in some ways to ask that help explain some of the challenge in trying to figure out what isn't and the direction to do it. the better we'll understand the biological bases of these different forms of optimism, it will make it difficult for us to hunt -- of autism, it will make it difficult to emphasize any of them. >> is it fair to say that we can rule nothing out in absolute terms from being a contributor? we heard the gentleman from ohio talking about mercury coming in air form. the former chairman talked about the possibility of vaccines having a direct relationship. is it fair to say that the multiple causes we suspect, the fact is that we can rule nothing out of including things we have not yet looked at? this is not only an unnecessary but also critically unfair to a large group of people in our society. to prevent the scenario, changes must begin now. mercyhurst is dedicated to preparing ala graduates for productive careers. we have tried to develop -- the age of parenting. would either of you feel comfortable talking in terms of waiting to have children and science is cooperating. is that an area that needs further study? >> it does need further study. there is evidence that suggests paternal age does have a correlation with the rate of optimism. it is clear that is not a factor. many older fathers have children who cannot have any form of optimism -- autism. in any given situation, it is not the factor but -- factor. >> thank you. i apologize i did not have -- ask certain questions. there are many interest groups i meant it into components that i did not even mention here today. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. in talking to the folks behind you, and there seems to be a frustration. i wish you could see them behind you. they are shaking their heads. with regard to coordination of efforts, research. and in my opening statement, i said i want us to move toward tried to make a difference. i know that is what the chairman feels too great we do not know how to book -- how we will be sitting on these panels and in congress in but we want to use our time effectively. what can we do to help the folks behind you get to the kind of thing they're looking for to have an impact? they are thoroughly frustrated. can you help us with that? >> we can also share your frustration. all of us are frustrated at the rate of progress in terms of understanding autism. perhaps because be are involved in it we have a different perspective. in terms of what congress can do, some of you have already done. in terms of funding but also attend the terms of the role of the autsim coordinating committee. imagine the frustration -- you imagine the frustration of coordination. they have done a good job coordinating work among federal agencies but also coordinating the federal agencies and advocacy organizations to really try to come up with a community to point about one should parties be within research. and service delivery and invention. while there is always room for better coordination, the coordination among agencies is much better than it was a number of years ago. saying we canalso do better? major federal efforts to confront a significant health crises have been mounted in the past. they had been in the focus of major efforts. how do you think the federal effort to confront office and spectrum disorder -- austim spectrum this order compared to those other efforts? >> they each present their own challenges and opportunities scientifically. one of the particular once the chairman and referred to a in terms of the the versus -- of the diverse conditions we are lumping as one. it also presents ordination challenges as well. it is hard to compare one disease movement versus another. they need to all be crafted with the acknowledgement of the attacker quality of the disease or diseases. >> austim, like breast cancer, as a very complex issue. with federal dollars, we have made considerable investments in research and programs and tracking. we are just starting to see some of the benefits from that. there really is an explosion of the formation, and lot more to be done, particularly on the environmental perspective. that is a discussion at the iacc level. >> the courtney committee is the tip of the sphere in the federal efforts to regress autism. in the committee's ability hampered by the absence of representation from private and nonprofit sector? with the coordinating committee be better positioned to treatment and services are important elements? >> the newly reauthorize committee is larger than its predecessor. that has been an advantage to the committee. it has more membership. like any committee, it struggles with wanting to clearly be inclusive but at the same time making the committee affective in terms of size, etc.. i think the committee tries to make sure about the inclusion by inviting public comment at meetings, have a town halls, other kinds of things. even those not represented directly on the committee have a voice in the room. >> i would agree with that. >> i now ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from virginia be allowed to sit in this hearing without objection. so ordered. also unanimous consent that mr. burton has waived two minutes of his five minutes so he can show a video before he begins. it the video can be shown that the gentleman will have three minutes afterwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me preface my remarks by saying i know there are many causes of artisan but the one you're talking about is the mercury vaccinations and in the environment. i want everybody in the room to see what the research shows. [video clip] >> how mercury causes brain degeneration. it is a potent toxin substance, whether in help are consumed in the diet as a food contaminants. medical research libor doris have established that in amalgam tooth fillings are a major contributor to mercury. in 1997, a team of research scientists demonstrated that mercury and place my animals produced a molecular lesion in the brain. recently completed the experiment by scientists at the university of calgary now revealed with direct visual evidence how mercury ions alter the cell membrane structure of developing neurons. to better understand its affect on the brain, let's illustrate what brain neurons look like and how they grow. in this animation, we see three brain neurons growing in a tissue culture, at the end of the growth, more structural proteins are assembled. two principal proteins are responsible for the post of emotions seen here and a structural component within the right membrane. during normal cell growth, molecules linked together to form michael tublues. -- micral tubules. display linear growth. it is important to note growth tones and all species have identical structural and behavioral characteristics. in this experiment, neurons isolated from snail brain tissue were grown in culture for several days. after which a very low concentrations of mercury were added to the culture medium for 20 minutes. over the next 30 minutes the member in underwent rapid the generation, and the contrast other heavy metals handed to it -- added to the same concentration such as aluminum, lead. they did not produce is a fact. to understand how mature causes this degeneration let us return to our illustration. proteins link together during normal cell growth. when mercury ions are introduced into the culture, they infiltrate the cell and find themselves. the mercury ions attach themselves to the site for gtp. since it normally provides the energy which allows molecules to attach to one another, mercury ions bond to the sites. the neurites micro tublues strip it of its structure. ultimately they collapse. they form aggregates. shown here -- before and after mercury exposure. the mercury has cost the disintegration of micro tubular structure. this reveals visual evidence as to how mercury causes and moral degeneration. the study provides the first direct evidence that low-level mercury exposure is a precipitating factor that can initiate this narrowed to identify -- neuro degenerative process in the brain. >> to give very much. there is an old saying, one picture is worth a thousand words. i have read i do not know how many studies on this issue. i have had some of you doctors here before. i've great respect for you and for the fda but sometimes i think outside influences have to wait an impact on the scientific research is necessary to find cures. we have gone from one in 10,000 children known to be autistic to 1 in '88. it is worse than an epidemic. it is an absolute disaster. how anybody can look at that study and see the brain cells deteriorating next to mercury, it mystifies them. how can anybody at the cdc watch something like that and said the mercury does not have an impact on neurological problems? it may be from other things besides vaccinations but vaccination that contain mercury should not under any circumstances be injected into any human being, especially children who have a fragile immune system. children get as many as 2830 shot before they go to the first grade. -- 28 shots before they go to the first grade. these people will tell you all about that. i would beg you to go back to the fda and say let's get with it. there may be other causes. but let's get mercury out of vaccinations which is a contributing factor. if you do that and go to a single shot of violence, it will not cause anything. please go back and work on it. >> we now recognized the gentle lady. [applause] from the district of columbia. ms. norton. >> thank you. >> i apologize. the gentle lady is right. do either of you have a response? i realize it will not imposed question. if either of you want to make a comment on the video, it will be in part of the record. >> i would be happy to make comment about the vaccine themselves. since 2001, it has been removed from vaccines given to children with the exception of -- >> we said the record will remain open for all, after you will have an opportunity to voice yourself. please, dr. . >> with the exception of the multi vial flu vaccine. >> thank you. the gentle lady may begin. >> i have a couple of questions. it would probably be the case that many of these children who may have some features of autism were not recognized early. you indicated how difficult it is to backtrack and do something about it. i assume there are millions walking around. where we do recognize what is seen as a disability, the idea says there must be services provided in the school. time not be able to get -- a child might be bale to get all manner of services related to speech and movement. very primary services. i have to assume there must be parents and relatives who are not recognized and where nothing was done. what are we doing about these young people? but not had any services? do they have anything havei.d.ea -- have anything like i.d.e.a. available to them? what that is a real jealous. -- >> that is a real challenge. >> what do we do to the child who is no longer a child, the mother and father have done all they could? this is an adult trout. what does the young person do? >> it is a real challenge for our society. your historic interest for the down to jim caucused, many of the issues are extremely similar if not identical for those children who become adults with any kind of disability. there is an extended rigid -- an advantage of being diagnosed early. we are trying to diagnose more affectively early. >> i want to know today. you have a person who was not diagnosed effectively. 21 years old. what do i do with this unperson? >> the first question, individuals on the spectrum are r diagnosed, neve the question is try to find the best -- >> in other words, there is nothing we're doing. we do not have any mandated services for them. the affordable health care act may provide the medical services but this is tragic if we have not found a way to accommodate an adult who may still become a functioning member in some way in society. i've often noticed peres of highly educated people come forward and speak up for down syndrome. why is that? is there a different in who recognizes and get it? ethnic, class? or is it an across-the-board condition? >> it is and across the board condition. it is not always diagnose. those of the greater access to higher medical care, tend to have the diagnosis made more frequently. those for various reasons to end barriers to access are less likely to have -- >> what is the minimum age we should be looking to if we have a child to see whether autism is there? >> there is a check is being used around one year of age. -- check list. we hope eventually even younger. the younger the better. >> we have tools to help parents identify children as early as possible. those are free and on our website. >> date know it. -- they know it. >> we have information about how to have a conversation to with your position. >> in other words, it is up to the family. >> thank god there are families to care so much. with that, we go to our first doctor on the panel for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to knowledge mr. burton for making this a instrumental and representing some people out there. one of the things i wanted to ask, i did not hear about diet. >> we do within the context of our study asked about information about diet. >> in the coordination, i was a practicing dentist for 25 years. i can understand their frustration. it is modifying. when you try to go for study, the coordination of studies is inherently poor. even recently as last year. we have people -- one that would give post ops to families, you get about twice the support. with autistic families, they are begging for more support. i'm finding more from them than i and the medical research. it seems we're focusing something wrong here. we should be focusing on the family. they are telling you what is going on and they're frustrated because the research is cylindrical. they are not sharing. they are not coordinating at all. we should be focusing on the family. i want to get back to die. i have a family history of this. we have to spend more time looking at the genetics. there is a trigger mechanism. there are so many things. you cannot point to a disease factor. the diabetes. heart disease. thyroid condition. you name it. you will find a dietary aspects. we ought to be focused been -- focusing on the dietary aspects. looking at how the we help parents in a dietary format. this is what my experience was. i spent every night after my practice closed going through aisles in a grocery store looking at everything on the isle to make sure it did not have gluten or wheat. do you knwo how long that took? it is unbelievable what these people have to do. we have researchers who do not listen to them. to me this is incredible. it is a slap in the face for these people to be looking at those aspects. one of my siblings has a son. one of my sisters is a physician. we found out -- she wondered if this was a problem for her son. we had a kid diagnosed or labeled as autistic and as soon as we took him off wheat, gluten products, he does everything appropriately. we can manage this practice a little differently. looking at that as our core group. then listening to people. asking the questions. that is what we were taught to do. ask questions. and listen. that is part of the biggest problem we see. you're not listening. i see the frustration all over your face. we were scheduled to be part of a genetic study. there are 10 kids in my family. out of the grandkids, 13 have seliac. you think he would use our family. said excuse we did not. we had better coordination. >> the gentleman yield back. i appreciate this is a hearing that many have waited a long time for and it is popular but i would ask that we neither have positive nor negative from here forward a possible. with that, we go to the gentleman from ohio. for five minutes. >> thank you very much. in preparing for this hearing, i was looking at some interesting studies and information to follow up on. the united nations and from a program says the burning of coal is the single most largest anthropogenic source of mercury air emissions, have a more than tripled since 1970. coal burning is increasing alongside at it -- alongside economic growth. this is from a report. there was a report done by the university of texas that showed a statistically significant link between pounds of industrial release of mercury and increased austism rates. autism prevalence was reduced by 1% to 10% from the pollution source. the background of the study was that during the time the studied by the texas team, they quoted the us epa estimating environmental mercury releases at 158 million tons annually nationwide in the late 1990's. when will -- are you aware of any studies other than this texas study that has a link between neurotoxic chemicals and the environment and increased rates of autism ? >> i am aware of other studies, for instance the one i mentioned earlier, looking at auto emissions and pregnancy early in life. clearly an association between that exposure and autism rates. >> the have probably gone down since we have had catalytic converters. i'm speaking about coal burning power plants being used in great frequency over the last couple decades. >> i did not know all the studies. i would be happy to look into them. >> and not sure there is another ecological study like that. >> it seems to me it would be timely given the fact that this issue is out there and the amount of coal that has been burned in the last couple of decades that a study be funded. and determine whether not the university of texas study has confirmed. the points of this study of about exposure, mineral development, vulnerability with respect to age. genetic susceptibility, that is always a factor. now we know the amount of commissions may be a factor. as we move forward with this, there is an amount of work that has to be done here that weight on science. it would be helpful to back a study that would determine once and for all whether the degree to which ought system is linked to mercury releasing sources, particularly coal, with respect to the university of texas. in conclusion, all these families here, yet members of congress on both sides of the aisle dedicated to try to find out what is going on here and to do it in the interest of your family and future generations as well. thank you for your presence. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you. let me start my commentary by saying as a first term congressman, we are often impacted by issues brought to our attention by the constituents we serve. i did not know of another issue that is -- has affected more my constituents that have demonstrated a greater degree of frustration and this particular issue. it is new to me. i am listening -- listening to your testimony. you study this in 2007. 1 in 150 children diagnosed. in 2009, 1 in 110. now 1 in 88. boys. in 54 have you ever seen anything in which there has been such a dramatic progression in the incidents of diagnosis in a six year period? >> most of my experience has been within the context of developmental disabilities. we look at trends. >> has anything have a trend with this kind of accelerated pace? >> the only one that showed an increase was adhd. >> i am talking about at the cdc, we deal with a broad variety of concerns. >> relative to my area of expertise. >> you are in the cdc. would you know about in general? >> specifically with autism, we have been looking at trends over time. there has been an increase due to how children are identified in diagnosed in the community. there have been changes over time that contributed the part. our system monitors the number children. we do not have all the permission about what is happening in the context that employ its is how children are identified. >> these are your words, not mine -- as we have seen this remarkable acceleration in the diagnoses, this is a public health concern. would you explain why this is not a public health crisis? >> this is a very important issue to the cdc. we are using the strengths of cdc to approach this issue. we are monitoring what they do -- it excellence is tracking and monitoring and prevention to rid >> this is an accelerating at a remarkable pace. what is being done to have a genuine comprehensive plan in which we are looking for accountability year to year on the progress being made? >> part of it again goes back to the iacc having been created and asking every year to come up with an updated plan. based upon the flurry of activity over the last two days alone, there really is work among -- it is that time of year. put togetherg to this year's plan in a thoughtful way. >> who is in charge of this? who wakes up and says this is my parity -- priority? >> the head of the iacc, the director of the national mental health. you asked dhaka important this is. to nih, it is extremely important. that is why there are a number of institutes that include office them -- autism. >> what does it take to develop a comprehensive national strategy? >> i would say the iacc accomplishes that in many ways. if that is lacking, it is a question for the congress to figure out how best if put that together -- to put that together. >> where is the dynamism in which that emerging evidence is being challenged in use? to hurry to a discovery as opposed to what may be and -- a willy nilly. as opposed to a real focus on the critical path? >> there are multiple parties involved that are quite concerned about this frustration is there and that is understandable. in receive years -- recent years, we have seen an acceleration in progress. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> are calling from florida. -- our colleage from florida. my friend from massachusetts. >> thank you. thank you to the witnesses and those of taken the time to be here. i'll let to address a concern my colleague had about children aging out. we did have a higher education opportunity act. a provision carrot in the house and senate. for colleges and community colleges to address programs for sustainability of portion l.a., the budget did i get funded again. i think we could all put our attention on that and deal with some families on that. you mentioned since 2000, it was moved from all vaccines except the multi vial vaccines. >> since 2001, and i am not a vaccine expert but my understanding is that the multi vials are needed from an international or global perspective but i will clarify that. >> could be substituted with others? also, is there a differentiation between incidence of diagnosed autism and other -- in other countries? is it region specific? >> in the most developed countries that do have data on autism, the prevalence has been comparable. about 1% to read a recent study supported by office and speaks until south korea showed a much higher prevalence at 2.6 or 1 in 38. that was then very differently. it is a community screening program versus a different method we use here in the u.s. within the context of our monitoring netrowkwork, the prevalnce varies considerably. >> what are we doing to determine if there higher rates in some states, are there studies, not to try to find out what is different about the marmot in those areas? -- about the environment in those areas? >> we are continuing to track the prevalence and identify children and a younger age. we have components to identify children at age 4. we are reviewing a study to try to understand what is impacting the prevalence rate from a community perspective, understanding how to our identified and diagnosed in the community as well as changes in risk factors and modeling how those changes over time might have influenced the the rate. rex my colleague talked about by it and other family instances. is there a part of this month during -- monitoring where families are interviewed? >> we have a second research program as well as activities that are ongoing at the nih. we have a research component in six states to do just that, to enter the dam is coming get more detailed information from medical records, to compare children -- dam it and children who have autism versus those who do not -- families of children who have autism versus those who do not. we have just completed the first phase. we have produced 700 families that have enrolled in that study whoe have 2,700 families have enrolled in that study. >> are you doing something also with minority and low-income groups to determine why the prevalence is higher there? >> we are incorporating -- our studies try to get everyone in the population. that is challenging. it is to represent the population. so, yes. >> thank you. >> now recognize myself for five minutes. you're the only pediatrician here today. i am a grandfather to seven children. one is five weeks old today and one will be four weeks old on sunday. is there a window the first year that parents should be looking at different behavioral activities in these children? >> absolutely. we do think the first year are potentially before that is crucial. the nih and others supported a study done in san diego which involved local pediatrician's doing a survey of their patients, a quick office based questionnaire to try to diagnose joseph with autism at about one year of age. the study it showed it could be affected and it was so convincing to the pediatrician that when the study was over and funding was over, all of the pediatricians elected to continue to do that in their practices because they were convinced this was important for their patients. absolutely more and more, we want to make a diagnosis because the media interventions and services to kick it to the families in a way to make a difference. the earlier we start, the better the impact. >> this is key. since we do not know how to prevent off isn't. -- prevent autism. we want to identify children as early as possible. cdc has a campaign targeting parents. it has tool to help parents as early as three months to understand what the appropriate development the milestones are. your daughter, your daughter in law, to take advantage of those materials. >> i am always holding them and the older ones i am reading too, i should be looking for things i have never been aware of before. we do not represent just one group of people. how are people in impoverished areas, how they get access? how the degette to them? how did we give an opportunity to find out what they need to know also? >> one thing -- we represent two agencies within the context withinhss. there are others represented in the coordinating committee. the health services resources administration focuses on trading positions in rural areas to try to target. then our colleagues on developmental disabilities. there are a lot of -- there is a lot of work here. the iacc is trying, i know it has its challenges, to bring t together all those voices in accord needed way -- in a coordinated way. >> there were various regional approaches before i came to the nih. i was the only medical geneticist in the state of a vermont. it was a regional network that try to approach the question and challenges of providing good diagnosis and good care to kids in rural areas. . . when he talked about the sam cooke song. most of our lives, the change usually occurs at a time of tragedy or crisis. i want to redirect a little bet -- mr. mcgarry is here from mercyhurst. mercyhurst recognize a long time ago, the mid-1980s -- then in 2009 you piloted the aim program. would you share a little bit with us what you have been able to do -- you have presented internationally what mercyhurst is doing and some of the innovations you brought in. if you would tell us how you shared some of that information, how you are able to disseminate to other people. once you become aware, we can fix things. we had a chance to see that today. i admire what you have done, not only in your academic life but in your personal life. if you could share a little bit with the people mercyhurst here people is doing in the aim program. >> two parts of the question. what are we doing to disseminate information? mercyhurst participated in pennsylvania -- we had the opportunity to have the inaugural conference on autism and higher education. mercyhurst and fiber six other institutions presented on some of -- and a five or six other institutions presented. 32 colleges or universities were represented in the audience to learn what they could do to start implementing some of the programming and things we are offering. what we are offering at mercyhurst is not rocket science. it is not a brand new treatment option. some folks have talked about applied behavioral analysis. we have collaborated with our program at mercyhurst. but we are doing a lot of trapping and looking at the students and saying, we have identified four main demands that we feel are very essential for our students in the academic setting as well as vocation. their academic social progress, independence, social and emotional -- we try to track those things specifically because what we are finding is that our students are lacking or having difficulty on those domains. the probability they will be successful in the higher education setting and or a vocational setting drastically decreases. so we are going to continue to kind of work on that. another thing we are doing is there is a pure mentoring program. what we found as many of the students in our program have been in that mentoring partnerships but have never been the mentor. we recently implemented a peer mentoring program, but it will also be going to social service agencies in erie that have other folks who have severe disabilities and going in as a mentor to them to say, i have accomplished something, i am a college student. people said i would never be here and i am -- i want to help you in what obstacles the need to face and get you through those obstacles. those of some of the things we're doing. >> we talked about employment opportunities. the idea that -- these are folks who can live a very productive life. they can be a big part of what we do as a country. i think it is the awareness. i really appreciate you coming here today in what you have done with your life. the more we become aware, the more we understand how to handle it, the more we can adapt and bring these people in. there is a light at the end of the tunnel on this. you want to talk about being successful -- the 24% are actually employed now. a lot of adults cannot get work. a bit of that impact and what we could do to change that. i think there is a great opportunity. these people, to get up in the morning and they cannot wait. >> absolutely. i think our vocational and are internship -- unfortunately we have a stigma and are working with students to have autism -- some of the vocational opportunities presented to mercyhurst are far beyond the skills and caliber of weston's can achieve. -- what our students can achieve. we need to have a strong awareness as other panelists have said. autism is not necessarily an intellectual issue. if we can train and work on some of the social skills and executive functioning, they can far succeed expectations and do some jobs much better than the rest of us. we need to train society to understand that and give the students specific skills to accomplish them. >> would you share the conversation we had? the professor was giving them an assignment -- i thought that was absolutely phenomenal. you cannot tell a book by its cover. share that -- i thought that was really uplifting. >> i had in the aim program -- we sent a letter to every single faculty member stating that this student in your class is being supported by the asperger's initiative, and if you or that students need resources we are available. the faculty member contacted me on the second or third day of class and said, this student, i explained an assignment that was worth 60% of the great in my course. the student looked at me and i am not sure if he understood a word of what i was saying. so can you work with him and help me work with them? that assignment was supposed to take 10 weeks. the student, the following tuesday, turned the assignment in and the professor said it was the most incredible piece of student graphic art he had scene in 25 years. we know there is a misrepresentation from what we think is being heard and what is being processed, and the caliber of students we are working with. >> think you for being here and dedicating your life to making sure these people do have a light. thank you so much, and i yield back. >> as promised, this was a long and well worthwhile hearing. we learned a great many things that both we and the public or not aware of. we did not have an opportunity to hear from witnesses who had genetic links that they could see in their own family. we certainly did not hear from the witnesses who are women recognized in their own lives that the under evaluation because of perhaps differences in behavior between men and women lead their to be a discrepancy in recognition and a discrepancy in perceived challenge to women versus man. we certainly learned that the state of utah has found a way to identify different or better or more than other states. we certainly learned that in fact a discovery system is not going to get us or any other country in the world to an accurate number or to seek out people we could help and help early. this and more will be things this committee will continue working on as part of the legacy of my predecessor. there is nothing we heard today that is off-limits for us to continue to explore. this committee stands ready to take your additional comments and questions as promised. this is a c-span audience -- we may get additional letters. we will make sure to include those in the record whenever possible. i do not believe we covered every interest group, either with our witnesses or here today. because there are so many organizations involved that want to be heard, i would only ask all of you, when you work with other organizations or groups or individuals, that you explain to them that this committee will have a permanent staffing at least as long as i'm chair to try to make sure to continue to consolidate the information and get government to do its job more effectively, efficiently, and if at all possible, continue dealing with all aspects of this disease. with that, the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are at the new york state museum. this is our gallery dedicated to the history of september 11 and the attacks at the world trade center. we decided with the gallery to tell the story for the first -- from the first moments of the attack, with objects and photographs from the site. this is a piece of steel on the south tower. we put it in a place where the public can touch it. you can give at the visitor a very tangible experience. this is a piece of steel from the north towers. this is a dramatic piece of steel. this is within 10 floors of the impact of a flight 11 from the north tower. you can see openings where the windows would have been. this metal strip that withheld the aluminum on the front of the building. every piece of steel is marked so you know which building, which for, and which side of the building. we researched that. this one we picked because it was so close to the impact and because it had the numbers, the chaka numbers -- the chalk numbers. it also has the numbers stamped inside. >> this weekend, joined the booktv as we look behind the scenes of new york's capitol city, albany. saturday, noon eastern on booktv. >> now a panel of authors who have written about president obama. from last month's washington ideas forum, this is less than a half-hour. >> before the election we were putting together some of these panels. we had one titled why did he win, why did he lose. we are having three authors of at some books about president obama, jonathan alter, and david mariness. interviewedg to be by a great interviewer purity always ask the questions, and ever i was writing a profile, what is he really like? >> where is the profile? >> it is on my laptop. >> thank you. it is great to be here. [applause] for the zoo cannot figure out which is which, david, jonathan, ron. i will start in the middle. this book is the center holds. what is it in your first book about obama that made you cast him as a centrist? >> i always thought he was a pragmatist. his overall approach to issues when he was in the u.s. senate, it the audacity of hope, about his altogether three senate career. it is clear that he is not an ideologue. i always thought the idea of him a socialist or what ever is just a smear. >> how did he get that way? >> it was supposed to. there was a concerted effort that started before he became president. it accelerated in 2009 to destroy him politically for the purposes of regaining power. there were a lot that people that have similar interest in trying to paint him as something that he was not. we all know about the whole birther movement. one of the most amazing parts is how far he moved into the mainstream. we are so used to it. we do not even think about how completely insane it is. what would it have had to happen for him to be born in kenya? you would have had to had clairvoyant people who must have place this in the birth announcment to make it seem like he was born in honolulu. >> i want to make sure you answer this. the theory i have on the media. >> even people like mitch mcconnell were saying were saying i do not know anything about where he was born. come on. obviously. >> i have a whole riff on that. it is the immigration and natural immigration services. does wanting to kick him out of the country. this is the hospital where obama was born, he took one of the famous doctors out for lunch and ask what interesting happened in your life this week? she said stanley had a baby. stanley is the mother's name. >> you all have just opened up a discussion about the conspiratorial echo chamber on the far right block this year and everything else. i have a new theory. i used to think that talk radio are really helping the republican party. now i think it led the party to have some real trouble and heard them more than help. >> that is absolutely right. we're seeing that much more clearly now. if romney had one we would not be saying that. they are living in a hermetically sealed universe where before the election you had not just romney partisans that seven watching too much fox -- >> trey pretty good piece about this. >> he wrote a terrific piece where he discovered this. he met that he was living on the upper side of manhattan. what i only know one person. something like that was less extreme. something was going on. i had a bet with the conservative talk-show host. romney would win with more than 320 boat. >> one of your the seas was that obama it's not mobilize his army of supporters well enough in order to truly be who he was. >> some of this was a gap between an election and governance. having said that, and they certainly do not apply a great deal of energy or strategy to mobilize the army. it is quite a crowd. it is like where do we go. you look at these 2 million people leaping. they were looking for direction. if you see that cropping up in the summer, they speak to the republican party. it highjacks that debate. the administration loses that control. then you have occupy wall street as well. obama keeps them at arm's length for the most part. i hear this a lot. what is the line? lbj says make me do it. people are starting to get a sense that obama is in need. there is no doubt about it. there is a sense of a new chart. it is making him rise to the new ways. he is now having a fresh hundred days to capitalize. >> do you agree that he is essentially a pragmatists? >> i do. he is a guy who you find him setting up some trial balloons. they tend to be on the left. there is more structural change. it they say they're like this idea. they really rebalance the financial system. he gets pushed back. sometimes he is with summers and sometimes he is with geithner. he tends to move toward pragmatism. he is evolving. we cannot help ourselves. the big question is how this man will of of and how it will express itself now that he has this. >> what is your big answer? >> some answers i think i have gotten over the last deal. i think she has gotten better and understanding the dynamics of presidential power, have to signal the people out there. how to box in his opponents a little better. they handled this very well. this is by february of 2011. this is not about this. this is about boxing them in and using the power of the presidency. has he built a new set of tools he will use? it is a big time for him. >> you ask a question of what really drives him? that seems to be the theme. >> this is still a bit of an open question. what do you think you're seeing l as the driving motivation? >> our road about this last week. the drive now is greatness. he had the opportunity for it. even as the second term often create unexpected problems that can sort of devolve, he cannot have had a chance of greatness without a second term. as you watched him in the first term, he was in a learning process. there are many times when his progressive reporters were frustrated. why isn't he learning? is also trying to find out where the traps are? every step along the way he has been trying to figure out how the traps are. they are trying to negotiate his way in terms of race in this world. he was trying to determine where they were. this was much tougher. what ec is that learning process where he is getting much better at that. >> this gives you an innate caution. he also said he will drive for greatness. >> he is looking at the traps that are not just for survival. that is what bill clinton second term was about. he could keep him from getting to that point of bringing everything to gavel. >> this came from his best friend who runs a parking company. he said obama has been ridiculed in his brain. he is constantly working the room excuse to get the right conversation to move them forward. he's always thinking a few steps ahead. if i did eight incident be they would to see -- if i do a and they do b, it would be c. he was in this particular kind of business. he wanted to be in a longer- term business. he did not make enough concessions to the day-by-day noise of washington. >> i call this his pregame aptitude. he plays the game before the players take the field. the trick is when you get to be president. it can create a kind of reticence, a step back quality that you missed. all those variables change. >> i think he is learning. i altered his landscape. as i do that, i am ahead of the pack. >> you're talking about striving for greatness. he is going to need to strive for greatness and reorganize the rubrics cuba. >> it does not help them become great unless he gets reelected. >> it is really the second term that it will be clear. beyond that, these are the cliches of the moment. eye-popping said will be climate change. it is certainly among the most important in the world >> i do not -- i think you do not think so. >> i think it will be some part of the immigration reform. >> i would be interesting and what you think. he might go back to what he was saying. he was saying i am coming full circle. who is talking about the grass roots organizing when he was out of columbia and wanted to do something larger than his own self interest. his honor was trying to help very poor people on the sell side of chicago. the whole community college peace which is not that sexy of an issue, i think he deeply believes that if you do not go to college you are screwed in america. you might see a whole new set of education initiatives about early childhood. they will go very hard on that. >> there is a big meredith. this could be the narrative. >> we need to focus in on that. it does come back again and again to education and to other interventions on what he called this. >> let's declare a ban on the use of the word "narrative." >> paes i am a narrative writer. -- he said i am a narrative writer. >> he has great chops. it is interesting when you see that near nature sometimes when you talk you feel it up there in the ceiling. he is also the main actor. i think he has learned that a president is about action. he will speak. he will act. other people will have to write the narrative. and another thing, you could be blunt about it. he had just a host of disasters from the bush era it just hit him like a tsunami. it is interesting. >> he has a cleaner slate. >> he can start building the substructure to show progress. >> this is a long-term thing. is it going to show results anytime soon to people in need? that was the long term? americans do not feel the of beck's. some of it is marketing in some of it is real. he will have time for them to say i do feel a little better. >> that was true of david. he did not really seize the reins of a second term. >> he had to wait a whole year before that. >> i was going to ask david. i am totally fascinated by each of those to do is trying to figure out who they were. you really do have the biography of them figuring out who they were. can you prepare and contrast? >> they came out of a provincial places. they both corrupt of their dysfunctional families. they both your to the presidency. bill clinton's philosophy of life was going forward. he became an incredible survivor. is a lot of things that got him out of the white house. he got in trouble with leaving the white house. barack obama really from the time he left honolulu at age 18, and he pretty intensely shy to resolve the contradictions. >> he had a lot more contradiction. >> this is some confidence in the white house. >> if i can resolve the contradictions, why can the rest of the world of? and gave him a sense of exceptional as some. >> it was only 2011. i believe the record is under estimated. >> and some ways he was using a princeton of the hidden hand. healthn't he propose a care bill and drop it on the steps of congress? he did not do it because it would have failed the way he did for 100 years. that is how long progresses' have been trying to get it done. yet she got it done. he did take a slightly in direct way. it worked for him. he got more legislation through. >> there is this idea that somehow they had this first term. >> everybody talks about lbj. >> aristotle defined justice as the word used for integrity. the notion is exactly what you said. >> it is not the integrated life we knew it. it is the second term. thank you very much. [applause] >> now i know more about what obama is really like. >> in a few minutes, a forum and energy security. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern. we will take your questions and comments as we focus on the fiscal cliff. the house of representatives is back in session at 10:00 eastern for general speeches. legislative business begins at noon. several live events to tell you about today on our companion network c-span 3. craig fugate will testify about the response to hurricane sandy. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the coalition for pasqual national security will focus on how the national security is impacted by the deficit. mike mullen will testify along with others. later, the center for strategic international studies host a forum on u.s. relations with china in light of china's leadership transition. that is at 5:30 eastern p.m.. ♪ >> this weekend on c-span 3, follow harry truman's grandson to hiroshima as the city celebrates -- remembers the dropping of the bomb. >> everybody has their own view. i do not want to argue about the history. i think we are past that. my goal and purpose for being here is to honor the dead and listen to the living. i want to do what i can add to make sure this does not happen again. >> we will discuss meetings with a bomb survivors and the inspiration for his trip. that is on c-span 3 on sunday at 9:00 eastern. >> are reported by the group -- ring america's future members of the group, a political and business leaders, are suggesting a plan of maximizing oil and gas production, reducing consumption, and improving conservation as a way to boost revenue and reduce our debt. this is about a less -- a little less than an hour. >> i want to give a special thanks to the staff at securing america's future energy. we stand on the shoulders and the time it takes to get these reports. the policy staff, james, leslie, the staff that puts these together, our political staff and the rest of the team at safe. we're seeing more production than we have ever seen before. the most production in the last couple of decades of year on year growth. oil imports are falling. the demand for oil continues to decline based on fuel economy standards and other reasons. we still continue to have a problem. the report we are releasing today and the subtitle says it all. harnessing american resources and innovation. how do we leverage this abundance we have in the united states to our maximum benefit? washington is talking about our fiscal crisis. the relationship of our oil needs to this crisis are close. it is unnecessary ingredients. every recession in modern times has been preceded by oil price hike. we can cut all we want and raise revenue, we will never find a way to solve our fiscal troubles. how do we leverage this great abundance in the united states of for resources and our skills to help the country through these times and put us on a good footing for the next 50 or 100 years. i think this report is the beginning of a process of creating an effective and stable bipartisan consensus on energy policy. everything is about the zero sum game in this town. we see oil security as a unifying vision where people do not have to compromise their core principles. the environmental community can see a reduction in the amount of carbon and an improvement in the environment as well as conservatives can see the idea of leaving it more resources at home and sending less of our wealth abroad. this is a way of doing something different, which is creating a consensus to get something done in the next congress. we are excited for the next congress and to work with all legislators to implement these recommendations and see them through to their felon. i would like to call fred smith, the chairman and founder of fedex. he really needs no introduction. but the truth is fedex and what it is done in our economy is groundbreaking. they are the clipper ships of the modern age. what they see in terms of the economic growth of our country, because they touch every industry, as well as providing the transportation to making our economy grow, i think he is well-suited to discuss this issue. i thank him for being the co- chair since 2006 and joining with general kelley and myself to do this. thank you. >> thank you. i became involved in the council out of self-interest. because of the energy intensity of fedex which operates almost 700 airplanes. i was recruited to this endeavor by air chairman, p.x. kelley, who pointed out to me when i first came aboard this effort that after nuclear proliferation and terrorism, our dependence on imported petroleum was our largest single national security issue. hence but business executives like myself and the ceo of southwest airlines and other companies that use a lot of energy and retired four-star military and naval officers who understand clearly this nexus of economic security and national security. we have been involved in the middle east in the past quarter-century and three shooting wars and a great tragedy for our country were the young lives lost and the treasury expanded and the foreign relations issued that it has engendered. all roads lead back to this dependence on imported petroleum. in 2005, we were importing about 60% of our daily petroleum needs. we had about 20 million barrels a day usage in this country. today we're down to about 40% in terms of our petroleum usage per day being imported. we are still spending about $60 billion a month to import that petroleum. this problem has been going on since 1973. every single economic contraction this country has had including the financial meltdown in 2008 was precipitated by run-up in oil prices. the marginal barrel of production is controlled by the opec cartel, meets twice a year to establish quotas in order to keep prices at an acceptable level for the opec exporters. the national oil companies of opec and other countries around the world hold the vast majority of oil reserves. they produced only about 40% of the world petroleum every day. there's a chart that shows this graphically. if there is ever an example of a market that is not free, it is that. nobody acts in that matter in a purely free-market. if opec were doing what it does abroad in this country, it would be a crime and in violation of our antitrust laws. the prescription that the council, but several years ago which was very impact will in the energy security independence act of 2007, was it, was based on our port of 2007, which said that the united states should maximize its oil and gas production, that it should significantly reduce consumption and improve conservation, which led to the direct support for the reinstitution of fuel efficiency standards, which has not been done for 20 years. and to develop to the extent it was liable a biofuel substitute for petroleum. this new report we are releasing today continues these themes with a couple of important caveat. the fantastic revolution that is taking place since our original report and are intermittent reports by the so- called fracking revolution for oil and gas. the significant improvement in national efficiency that has been brought about by technology and the new fuel efficiency standards that were enacted by the bush administration and were increased by the obama administration. the report is not political in any way shape or form. it endorses things that are supported by the right in some cases and that are supported by people on the left. you cannot just take the parts that you like. you have to take the holistic approach, to maximize u.s. production and to reduce consumption partly by diversifying our transportation sector away from petroleum. the last thing i will say is that petroleum use in transportation is the pivot point of this entire problem. 70% of our use of petroleum in this country is for transportation. transportation is fueled about 93% of the time by petroleum. if you want to reduce the united states' dependence on imported petroleum and the related geopolitical issues, particularly in an issue when rising demand is creating a potential conflict for these resources, then you have to recognize transportation has to be diversified away from petroleum or the prices are set on the world market. canada and norway have been net petroleum exporters but they pay the same market price for a gallon of gasoline as we do. so you must diversify and that includes light duty trucks and the adoption of natural gas in its liquified or compressed form for heavy-duty vehicles like refuse trucks. if the recommendations are adopted, the united states has the potential to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and thereby our national -- reduce our national security risk to improve our balance of payments and about half remains petroleum. and to increase our gdp by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. thank you very much. think we can sit down now. >> thank you. give us a moment to take care seats. [applause] our panel discussion is about to begin featuring senator lamar alexander and our moderator. >> can you hear me now? good morning, everyone. i'm in lazy moderator. want to talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country and the future of transportation. i want to make sure you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and ask another question. do we all agree? wonderful. let me start with fred. we have heard about this new found or renewed abundance for energy. i have heard people this week, saudi america. we have all this energy. how do we leverage it and harness it? >> it is important to take the hyperbole of comments like america being the new saudi arabia of energy and put it in perspective. 18.7 burning about billions of liquid fuels today. we produce after an incredible increase of domestic production about 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day. when you take biofuels and the natural gas liquids, it is about 9 million barrels per day. we are still importing an enormous amount of petroleum. the first thing about our recommendation is to maximize u.s. oil and gas production everywhere, in alaska, offshore, it is coast, west coast, gulf coast, in new york, pennsylvania, in the eagle ford areas. that has enormous implications in terms of gdp growth. because of the enormity of the issue, you have to continue to reduce demand. >> what role should the government play in the future -- your business is in transportation, too -- we are mired in conversations about the fiscal cliff. we are talking about long-term infrastructure, a long term energy plan. >> this is the perfect opportunity for the government to work together to achieve a common goal. there is plenty of times when our interest might not call last with the interest of either of the parties. this is the opportunity we have never had before. you could have consumer, business, and the government's all working together to take advantage of this huge resource. for us, it makes so much sense because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 a quilt when natural gas. from the government point of view, everybody is talking about jobs and the fiscal cliff. everyone talks about taxes and what is going to happen with the fiscal cliff. there has been $1500 gone to increase oil prices. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. everybody talks about entitlements. high oil prices make the social security trust insolvent five years sooner than they would if he did not have high oil prices. america needs jobs and growth. following the recommendations in our report will lead to both of those. it would be good for american business. >> i will start with senator alexander. tell me about energy policy and where it fits in with the fiscal cliff. what we will spend money on and how we were tightened our belts. >> the major place it fits is the right policy would create an environment which would produce a lot more revenue. that would help to reduce the debt. the federal government doesn't

Transcripts For MSNBC PoliticsNation 20131009

democrats wrapped up a meeting at the white house. tomorrow republican leadership will meet with president obama. earlier, a somber reminder of the pain of the republican shutdown and what it is causing. four fallen military service members arrived at dover air force base. because of the gop shutdown, their families were denied death pen f benefits that would have covered cost of travel. they put speaker boehner into damage control mode. today allowing death benefits to happen. none of this had to happen. and now we're learning boehner is really feeling the heat. the new york times reporting tonight the republican party is quote increasingly isolated. their biggest business supporters are now demanding the immediate reopening of the government. today the national retail federation sent a letter to congress warning of the damage to consumer confidence. they join the right wing chamber of commerce in pressuring the gop. and the national association of manufacturers. this demand to reopen the government comes as people across the country are still being hurt. >> the small business association stopped processing loans during the government shutdown. >> when we went to the bank that morning and they said sorry, this is a no go, and they told me why. i mean, i felt my heart hit the floor. i had an awesome job that i left to follow the american dream and i can't do anything about it. >> sonya from roadrunner food bank says employee also receive food from the food bank as the effects of the shutdown creep into the day to day lives of many. >> many are our own donors who give us food and funds. >> the department of health and human services has been a halt on the wic program. >> we're not going to get wic today. you know what? to tell you the truth. i don't know. we're not starve, are we? >> speaker boehner could make this all go away today if he would have a vote. that's why we are having this, a 5% approval rate, an all-time low. is there any wonder why they are feeling isolated? thank you both for being here. >> thank you for having me. i just left a meeting with the president. >> i was going to ask you about that. you just came from a white house meeting with the house democrats. and let me ask you about that meeting and about reports the gop is getting isolated. what is the sense from democrats on where this is going? >> we >>. >> reporter: we think that the republicans have gone down the wrong road. they need to turn around. and what the president said was that, you know, he is not going to compromise, as i said two weeks ago when i was on your show, on the issues at hand. that is that the government has to run in its normal operation. and the government has to pay its bills. now in terms of the fair negotiations with the other party on things that we're concerned about and things that they're concerned about, we can have those negotiations, but he's not willing to have our nation held hostage. he was very clear about that. but i think he's got an outstretched arm and hand to speaker boehner that look, let's get back to regular order, let's pay our bills, and then let's sit down and talk through whatever the concerns of the republican party may be. >> well, congressman, as much as you can, take us inside the white house meeting. what happened in the meeting that you can share with us? >> well, i can share this. the president says he's always been amazed that you have so many climate deniers. then you've got default deniers. if the government doesn't pay its bills, if the full faith and credit of the united states, which has always been the gold standard in the world is just pushed aside it won't have any effect. this is the most radical, extremist notion that we could be a deadbeat nation and somehow it's not going to affect our markets and our economy, it's the most dangerous language we've heard. people who should now muknow mu better about this. >> abbey, the fact of the matter is, when you hear that they are default deniers, and you hear it in the context of climate control deniers, that's pretty, pretty scary that we have people that will make a decision on the debt limit that really are in denial that default in this regard would have the impact that it in fact will have. >> it's incredibly scary, and that's why we're in this position now. can you throw out this anti-government rhetoric. that's all fine and well until you can't pay the bills, you can't pay the families who have soldiers that lost their lives in afghanistan. you can't track the flu that kills people every year. all that's been cut off. you have 2 million people that aren't getting paid. they're not sure when they're going to get paid again. they rely on this for daily expenses, whether it's going to the store to buy food for their families. >> many survive check to check. >> abbey mentioned these military families. we're talking about people that died protecting americans. died in the service of this country. listen to what the president said when he was asked about military families. >> what aid say to them is actually that's solved today. i just said administratively. i'm not going to wait for congress. i asked secretary hagel to fix it. and it's going to get fixed today. >> what do you say to those folks, sorry? >> no, we should never have been there in the first place. the theory that we should shut down the government as a negotiation tactic should never have been done in the first place. and it does a disservice to all the men and women in uniform and all those who sacrificed for our freedom. >> we should never have been there in the first place, the president says. can of imagine your child, my child dying in the service of this country, and we're told we cannot help you, because we want to stop a law that was already passed? i mean, can you imagine the pain and anguish that must cause people who did nothing but what was right for this country? >> well, that shows you the recklessness of all this, and there's all this talk about who's to blame. there are three leg, house, senate, white house. the house is the one leg that says we won't keep the government open. the senate says they will pass a clean cr. the house says no, unless you give us all of our demand, we won't allow the government to function. and not only did this disgraceful thing happen today, but all the inspections from plant catastrophes around the country had to stop. inspections of our airplanes at the maintenance terminals at airports have had to stop. we've had research going on and paid for by the national science foundation which has to be put on hold and will wipe out a year's worth of work for some of the world's best scientists because of this nonsense, all to attempt to have us deny affordable care, which never was going to happen. this is a dead-end road. they were never going to get the president to retreat or equivocate. and now they seem to, based on paul ryan today seem to have admitted that, well, they need to get back to some more normal discussions about what political parties want. democrats want a lot of things. we want immigration. background checks. we want more funding for universal child care and education. so let's have a discussion about that, but not at the threat of cutting and closing down our government. >> abbey, there is this times article about the isolation of the gop. now some of their own business allies in the business community, major players are calling on them to end this shutdown immediately. what is your view of that, and will this bring them toward any level of rational behavior here? >> that is a great question. i wish i could answer that. and i wish the answer was yes. it's really no surprise that the american people seem dysfunction in washington. as a bigger problem in the economy, that is where we're at. the biggest issue for republicans is there's no authority. we know that speaker boehner has not been able to really show, exert any sort of leadership for a long time now. so they're in a position now where the tea partiers as we know, they're not likely to budge on this. what it's going to take is speaker boehner to exert some of that leadership. i don't know that's going to happen in the near future. i don't see it happening, but it's going to have to happen. you see folks like senator mccain, rational voices who are trying to make some sense saying look, we know how this is going to end. we see the writing on the wall here. it's time to throw-in the towel. unless you're affecting the outcome of the election in 2014, they don't care what anyone has to say. >> you can tell how bad it is when i'm saying john mccain is rational. but at least in this point, he is. thank you both for your time tonight. be lure and catch abbey on the cycle, weekdays at 3:00 right here on msnbc. still ahead, a surrender from the billionaire boys club, funding the shutdown, president obama's winning, and the pro brothers are beginning to crumble. plus the gop's hypocrisy. they love to praise him except when he's on the same page as president obama. and the new attacks on health care and the health care law, comparing the president's signature achievement to the most shameful period in american history. also, what's on your mind, e-mail me. friend or foe, i want to know. reply al is ahead. ♪ with an innovative showerhead plus wireless speaker, kohler is the proud sponsor of singing in the shower. [ male announcer ] let's go places. but let's be ready. ♪ let's do our homework. ♪ let's look out for each other. let's look both ways before crossing. ♪ let's remember what's important. let's be optimistic. but just in case -- let's be ready. toyota. let's go places, safely. hearty cheeseburger. creamy thai style chicken with rice. mexican-style chicken tortilla. if you think campbell's 26 new soups sound good, imagine how they taste. m'm! m'm! good! you have joined the politics nation conversation on facebook yet? we hope you will. today our fans were giving advice to congress, which, thanks to the republicans is suffering from its lowest approval rating ever. vickie says, my advice, start listening to the people and get on with doing their jobs. mary says focus on what is important. the people who live here in america and pay taxes to pay your high salaries. all good advice. what would your advice be? we want to know. please head over to facebook and search politics nation and like us to join the conversation that keeps going long after the show ends. la's known definitely for its traffic, congestion, for the smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the buses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution into the air. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment. over 20 million drivers are insured with geico. so get a free rate quote today. i love it! how much do you love it? animation is hot...and i think it makes geico's 20 million drivers message very compelling, very compelling. this is some really strong stuff! so you turned me into a cartoon...lovely. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. we're on the verge of something never seen in america. eight days away from hitting the debt ceiling. the treasury department warned credit markets could freeze. the dollar could plummet. interest rates will skyrocket. and we could see, quote, a recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. but senator toomey doesn't buy it. here he is this morning. >> there's zero chance that the u.s. government is going to default even its debt. it's unfortunate that people have conflated this idea of not raising the debt ceiling immediately on october 17th with somehow defaulting on our debt. i haven't heard any of my republican colleagues suggest that it might be okay to default on our debt. >> oh, yeah. no republican is saying it's okay to default except congressman yoho. he said it would bring stability to the world markets. oh, and then there's this star team of debt deniers. >> the debt ceiling has never not been raised. so there is no debt ceiling. >> i don't think the credit of the united states is going to be collapsed. i think all this talk about a default is a lot of false demagoguery. >> if you don't raise the debt ceiling what that means is you would have a balance budget. it cooperate mean you wouldn't pay your bills. >> this talk about default by the u.s. treasury is nonsense. >> no. no. it's not nonsense. it's fact. it's time to come back to reality. before more damage is done to the country. joining me now is former chief economist for vice president and of course, thank you for coming on the show tonight. i want to get right to to. what is your response to republicans saying that this is no big deal? >> to hear that series of misstatements in normal times when we didn't have already a fragile underlying economy and we weren't literally days away from what i view and most economists view as a possibly cataclysmic mistake, it's horrific. i just don't know the words for it. look, here's the very simple economics. what they're trying to say is that the treasury can pay off our creditors based on daily cash flow. revenues come in, even after the debt ceiling is not raised. but what they cannot say is the following -- can the treasury pay all of its bills? of course not. so if the treasury decides to pay one creditor but not a social security beneficiary, not a soldier, not a defense contractor. that is default by another name. so they are, they couldn't be more wrong. >> once it hits that ceiling on the 17th, then it becomes a period of where some bills have to not be paid, and it increases and increases. i want to go back to the new york times report on business groups calling for the end of the shutdown. here's what they say. in a letter to congress, the president of the national retail federation said, quote, we strongly support passage of both a continuing resolution to provide for funding of the federal government into the next fiscal year and a measure to raise the nation's debt ceiling. now these are people that are customarily supportive of conservative or right-wing causes. why would threy write that. >> unfortunately, the extremist community isn't moved at all by the pressure you could flormly count on to put this to the side. the problem right now is less the ted cruises and bachmans. it's the moderates who should know better but refuse to eschew the extremists. let me make one more comment. you can't even guarantee that you'll be able to pay your creditors if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. because it's very easy to imagine a day, and that's all it takes, for the cash flow to be too low to pay the creditors. all this is phony and dangerous. >> let me raise to you a champion of those guys and what he had to say in 1985 about the debt ceiling debate. listen to though. >> never before in our history has the federal government failed to honor its financial obligations. to fail to do so now would be an outrage. and the congress must understand this and bear full responsibility. >> i've never heard a name more used by the right wing than ronald reagan. and that is what ronald reagan said about debt ceiling. how can they come as reaganites and say the kind of things that i played to you that they said. >> two things. you now as well as i do that ronald reagan would be kicked out of the republican party today for being two centrists. and what they're telling you is no, we can meet our obligations with cash flow. that is patently wrong. we cannot make our obligations with cash flow. we can maybe pay our krid tors, mash not. >> thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. coming up, using the language of slavery to score political points just took an ugly new turn. and they had plans to take down president obama, but today they blinked. that very big news is ahead. i'm a careful investor. when you do what i do, you think about risk. i don't like the ups and downs of the market, but i can't just sit on my cash. i want to be prepared for the long haul. ishares minimum volatility etfs. investments designed for a smoother ride. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. president obama has the billionaire boys club running scared. big news tonight about the koch brothers waving the white flag on the government shutdown. there's only two of us... how much dirt can we manufacture? more than you think. very little. [ doorbell rings ] [ lee ] let's have a look, morty. it's a sweeper. what's this? what's that? well we'll find out. we'll find out. [ lee ] it goes under all the way to the back wall. i came in under the assumption that it was clean. i've been living in a fool's paradise! oh boy... there you go... morty just summed it up. the next 44 years we'll be fine. morty just summed it up. i missed a payment. aw, shoot. shoot! this is bad. no! we're good! this is your first time missing a payment. and you've got the it card, so we won't hike up your apr for paying late. that's great! it is great! thank you. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. if yand you're talking toevere rheuyour rheumatologistike me, about trying or adding a biologic. this is humira, adalimumab. this is humira working to help relieve my pain. this is humira helping me through the twists and turns. this is humira helping to protect my joints from further damage. doctors have been prescribing humira for over ten years. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. for many adults, humira is proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira , your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your doctor if humira can work for you. this is humira at work. if you have a business idea, we have a personalized legal solution that's right for you. with easy step-by-step guidance, we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality. start your business today with legalzoom. we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality. i'to guard their manhood with trnew depend shields and guards. the discreet protection that's just for guys. now, it's your turn. get my training tips at guardyourmanhood.com there aren't a lot of funsing democracies around the world that work this way, where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bank rolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed. and what it means is, ordinaries are shut out of the process. >> president obama taking on the billionaires that are polluting our political process. and now signs that those billionaires are running scared. we told you about the plot hatched in secret by conservative activists with the deep financial involvement of the billionaire koch brothers. but today, the koch brothers are backing away from the fight they helped start. they sent this letter saying koch has not taken a position on the legislative tactic of tying the continuing resolution to defunding obama care, nor have we lobbied on legislative provisions defunding obama care. haven't taken a position? they financed the groups that planned the shutdown. just today, politico reported the koch brothers gave half a million dollars to the group heritage action, which this summer even put on a defund obama tour with ted cruz. >> i also want to take a moment to welcome our friends from heritage to the great state of texas. [ applause ] now is the single best time we have to defund obama care. [ applause ] >> the koch brothers helped pay for events like this. and then claimed not to have a position? on the defund movement? the truth is they provided a lot of start up money for americans for prosperity. the so called astroturf group behind the tea party. and they helped fund this creepy anti-obama care ad, telling people not to get inshushs. pretty scary. but you know what's scarier? the koch brothers' pledge to personally spend $60 million to personally beat obama. their money funds are a huge part of the conservative world and paved the way for this shutdown. charles koch wanted the fight declaring war before the 2012 election. >> we've been talking about we have saddam hussein, the mother of all wars we've got in the next 18 months for the life and death of this country. >> the mother of all wars. well, guess what? president obama won that war. now he's standing tough against the dead-end movement to shut down the government. and the koch brothers are waving the white flag, joining me now is a nag at investigative correspondent for nbc news. thaun thank you for being here. you reported on this letter the koch brothers sent to congress. what's behind it? >> first of all, it's a pretty remarkable letter because the koch brothers have been historically so secret and quiet about everything they do politically. and to have a letter like this is pretty extraordinary. as you've pointed out, you have a lot of attention in recent days about all the money that they have helped fund to conservative groups that have been pressuring house republicans to link defunding obama care to the continuing resolution, to shut down the government. and harry reid on the senate floor the other day denounced the koch bros. said they are responsible for how we got to where we are. it's very clear they're getting concerned, probably not so much go a government shutdown but about the idea of a government default. they run a huge, multi billion dollar business. >> are they concerned about their business because the prospect over default over the health care law is really scary. and you wrote today, let me read what you said. privately koch officials have expressed concern that the prospect of a default over the obama care issue would be a disaster for the economy. are they afraid for their businesses, michael? >> well, look, three a they are economy. they need credit markets to be smooth for their businesses to function. so whether it's for them personally or the economy in general for which they are inextrickably intertwined, i think it would be hard to separate out. but clearly they are concerned like a lot of other traditional backers. they all joined a letter today making essentially the same point, that they don't want the economy to go over the cliff on this, and they don't want us to go into a default. >> karen, does this show the republican crackup? >> it sure does. but it also shows that the republicans, i mean, we talked about their before. this is their own problem that they have created coming home to roost. think about their. the koch brothers are now trying to get help from others in congress against the, those tea party crazies that they funded, as you pointed out in your opening. that's how ridiculous this is. they maybe should pay a little bit closer attention to where the money that they're spending actually goes. for them to now say we weren't saying, you know, we weren't for, obama care, they also spent what was it, $5 million in direct advertising against obama care? this goes to something that i hold responsible folks like the koch brothers, like any of the large donors to the republican party, any of the rational people in the republican party. this summer, when ted cruz was out there with heritage doing these rallies, trying to whip up the base and whip up the frenzy around defunding obama care and tying that to the cr, shame on them for not putting a stop to it then. because that's why we're at this point. >> and let me say this, michael. you've talked about how private they are, but they have sent a letter before. last fall, koch industries sent thousands of employees a letter telling them to vote, and a handy list of the candidates they endorsed, including mitt romney and paul ryan. i mean, this is like blatant pressure from your employer. >> right. i mean, that's, that's something, part of get out to vote efforts on the republican side. there are plenty of comparable get out to vote efforts on democrat sides. but i think what i was referring to is to be paub lick about the lobbies process which is what they did here. this was a letter to congress stating their position, urging and telling members of congress where they stand. and usually they do that in private, not in public. >> now, you know, the guest list at their koch events where they have these retreats, it reads like a who's who in the republican party, reported attendees include chris christi, paul ryan, jim dement, eric cantor, rush limbaugh, glen beck. judge anat that mean ca she yeah. how big is the influence in the republican party? >> it's huge. i mean, they give, and remember, we don't actually know the full breadth and depth because the way they raise money is through these organizations that then give money to other organizations. so the money is flowing all throughout, from whether it's freedom works, americans for prosperity. you name it. they are a huge influence. but, again, i sort of feel like the kochs and some of the other conservatives, you can't have it both ways, right. now they're saying they don't want to see us hit the debt limit and the debt ceiling and have that crisis, but, again, they were fine with whipping up the base and letting them get whipped up and push this for months and months and months as long as they thought there was going to be a different outco. and now it appears, ah-oh, this isn't the outcome we expected. you can't have it both ways. >> thank you for your time tonight. be sure to watch disrupt with karen finney weekends at 4:00 eastern receipt here on msnbc. and one note, i invited the koch brothers to come on the show tonight, they passed and declined further comment. ahead, comparing the health care law to slavery isn't just for the usual right-wing hate amongsters. it just got bigger. that's next vo: irresponsible. rep. rokita: obamacare hurts this country much more than any government shutdown. vo: reckless. rep. blackburn: people are probably going to realize... they can live with a lot less government. vo: destructive. rep. bachmann: this is about the happiest i've seen members in a long time. vo: the government shutdown is hurting veterans, seniors, and our kids. now tea party republicans are threatening... an economic shutdown. refusing to pay our nation's bills. endangering american jobs. tell them to stand up to the tea party. enough already! from the classic lines to the elegant trim in each and every piece, kohler will make your reality a dream. evto earn degrees in mathan stand science.ut but more than half leave their programs. so we're missing out on 450,000 math and science graduates annually. but if we can help students prepare for these subjects we'll have a stronger workforce for our fastest-growing industries. let's invest in our future. join exxonmobil in advancing math and science education. let's solve this. . wea've heard a lot of offensive talk when it comes to the affordable health care act. for some on the right, the act is slavery. this is the latest to offer up this pearl of wisdom. >> i hear democrats say the affordable care act is the law, as though we're supposed to jen u flikt that sunburst and move on. slavery was the law and then we changed them. >> he's comparing health care to a law that allowed slave owners to get their escaped slaves back, even from fwree states in the north. but george will isn't the only pundit comparing the law to slavery. >> what barack obama seem does want to do is go back to those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. >> when the government forces hospitals and physician does provide free health care to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves, that's not charity, that's slavery. >> we can't do anything about it. that's the law of the land. well, so was slavery one time the law of the land. >> now you'd expect that kind of talk from rush limbaugh and the fox news crowd, but elected officials? members of congress? yeah. they're using it too. >> the this insurance card in people's pockets is going to be as worthless as a confederate dollar after the war between the states. >> request regards to the idea of whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. i'm physician. that means you can come to my house and conscript my. means you brief in slave ray. >> it is as destructive to individual and personal lib irrelevant as the fugitive slave act of 1850 that allowed slave owners to come to new hampshire and seize african-americans. >> really? the republican party was founded on one issue, to outlaw slavery. now they've got one mission, to oppose everything done by the nation's first black president what are republicans trying to achieve when they invoke slavery to attack the health care law? >> trying to appeal to those who probably didn't study the fugitive slave act and probably only are search engine deep in the issue of slavery. look, common sense tells you, you've got 8 million plus people who are signing up to find out about the affordable care act, right? people signing up. now you tell me, one person, one person who signed up during the 400 years of slavery to get on a slave ship. tell me one person who says i want to find out this thing about slavery and lord know, i'm ready to sign up. this is just how stupid this argument is. but, they're again, playing off this whole and strabt, racial discussion because it's president obama. >> it's insulting for some. >> insulting for most of us. >> tell me how this plays politically. who are they trying to play to? >> anytime that they're mentioning slavery or whether they're talking about the quote-unquote war of yankee aggression you know exactly who they're playing to, their far, far right wing base and the very regional base at that. and what george will doesn't seem to understand here is that the reason that democrats are so upset about the way that republicans characterize this is that they're not saying that they're going to, you know, repeal obama care by passing it through the house, passing a new law through the senate, having the president seen it. instead, what they're saying is no, we're going to blow up the global economy if you don't just delay this or defund it. so if you want to compare it to the other odious laws in the past, those laws were repealed. you know, they went, they went through the legislative procession. >> they were not defunded. >> they weren't defunded. they weren't delayed. you didn't threaten, not just threaten but actually shut down the government and blow up the global economy. >> listen to this. >> progressive policies are keeping these people in slavery. slavery to government, welfare, affirmative action, regulation, control. >> slavery and apportion, the two most horrendous things this country has done. >> the legal immigration is modern day slavery. >> it is slavery. it's slavery. >> now justice clarence thomas evokes slavery in his opinion on affirmative action. he said slave the holders argued that slavery was a positive good, that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life. republicans even named an anti-abortion bill after abolitionist frederick douglass. they use though slavery line and this comparison to slavery, no matter how insulting and offensive to some of us. they use it all the time through several issues. >> and they did it even decades ago when it came to social security. they did it decades ago when it came to medicare. the reality is that, as you know, i know, and every thinking, compassionate human being knows that slavery was human bondage. slavery was an immoral act. everyone knows that. there's nothing immoral about trying to feed children. there's nothing immoral about giving people an upper hand. what we understood about slavery was the immorality of it, the inhugh mainness of it. the fact that it literally killed millions of people. and, by the way, we fought a civil war over it. this is what -- >> and lost a lot of lives. and it was around people being due humanized. but, when you hear these comparisons to slavery and these trying to keconnect these kindsf dots with ugliness, how does this play to mainstream voters in this country? >> i think it just makes them look totally off their rocker. let's be clear about what we're talking about here. you know, what is obama care? it is a small amount of subsidies for private health care insurance. i mean, this is what's going to destroy the country? is our grasp on freedom in this country so fragile that a few subsidies for private insurance are going to destroy that? subsidies, by the way, which they're saying won't even make insurance affordable enough for a lot of low and middle income people. are these insurance rates too high and therefore obama care is a failure? or are they too low in which case it is somehow comparable to slavery. they don't make any sense whatsoever. and i think the 80% of the country watching this is going to agree with that and say what are they talking about, wait, a subsidy for health care is slavery? okay. i'm not going to listen to anything else that these people have to say. >> joe madison, ryan, i'm going to have to leave there. last week, a gop leader told me we don't live in a democracy. now another republican is getting some basic facts about america wrong. it's time for a civics lesson from professor al. that's next. [ woman #1 ] why do i cook? ♪ because an empty pan is a blank canvas. ♪ [ woman #2 ] to share a moment. ♪ [ man #1 ] to remember my grandmother. [ woman #3 ] to show my love. ♪ [ woman #4 ] because life needs flavor. ♪ [ woman #5 ] to travel the world without leaving home. [ male announcer ] whatever the reason. whatever the dish. make it delicious with swanson. [ woman #1 ] that's why i cook. the shutdown has left me wondering just what republicans are thinking. but yesterday, republican congressman mike mullen from oklahoma tried selling his idea for cooperation in washington, and it only left me with more questions. >> this country isn't ran by just one individual. it's ran by four branches, but three branches that are controlled. as long as three branches control it we all have to figure out how to negotiate. >> white a minute. hold on. this is breaking news. how did i miss this? >> this country isn't ran by just one individual. it's ran by four branches. >> when did they add another branch? now maybe he thought the house and senate were separate branches, but, you know what? i'm not here to criticize. we all make mistakes. so i'm here to help. how about a little gop civics lesson, shall we? school's in session. call me professor sharpton. let's head over to the board, shall we? here are the three branches of government. the legislative, made up of the senate and the house. the executive. the president makes laws official. and the judicial. the supreme court oversees the court system. so that makes one, two, three. but hey, he probably took the right wing civics class. that's where they teach those other branches. the koch brothers. sure, they may be rich enough to buy congress. and then the fifth branch. fox news. yeah. they make their talk being points through that wing of the party, of the government. and sixth, the rush branch. he oversees the entire system. i can see how the congressman got confused. so class is dismissed for the day, but congressman, did you think we'd ignore your failing grades? nice try, but here's your homework. we got you. [ tires screech ] ♪ [ beeping ] ♪ may you never be stuck behind a stinky truck. [ beeping ] ♪ may things always go your way. but it's good to be prepared... just in case they don't. toyota. let's go places, safely. but it's good to be prepared... just in case they don't. trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. finally, tonight, president obama leading on the shutdown fight. he's standing firm and refusing to breach a principle that would weaken the presidency. in my new book, the rejected stone, i write about not being afraid of what you want and getting things done. don't be afraid to ask what you want, because memany times i fi beat around the point. you've got to develop the courage to say this is what i'm after, this is what i'm in it for. this is what i want. and start from there and go back. as long as you avoid the point, you're really insecure about making the point. you know, i'm really excited about my new book. if you'd like to read an excerpt, please go to our facebook page and find details about my next book signing in philadelphia tomorrow. i'll be at the free library of philadelphia on vine street at 12:00 noon tomorrow. i hope to see you all there. as i talk about the book, it's not just politics. in your personal life, on the job. don't be afraid to say what you want and stand up

Transcripts For CSPAN2 U 20121204

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20121205

whole of next year during which you can reach resolution to that issue. now, the only reason why i think that's an extraordinarily bad idea is i think it would be viewed quite unfavorably by the financial markets. and so you could see a reaction. and it is really bad tax policy to be legislating in the middle of the tax year on the basic structure of the income tax for that year. >> host: we'll go to jeff in tampa, florida, independent caller. >> caller: good morning, how you doing? >> host: good morning, sir. >> caller: yes, i have a question for mr. buckley, and this is more -- it may be a little generic, but something that a couple of my friends and i have talked about and just trying a basic understanding of. instead of having an income tax, has there ever been any discussion about having a national or a federal sales tax to help offset so this way everyone from the rich to the poor, everyone pays the same amount? i mean, i'm not sure the exact amount that you would have to pay, i'm not an economists, but it's just something we've always thought about, and i was just curious what mr. buckley thought. >> guest: well, there were proposals in the middle '90 from then-republican ways and means committee chairman bill archer to totally repeal the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. they never went anywhere for a variety of reasons, the first is the rate of the tax would have to be extraordinarily high. well above 20%, in the mid to upper 20s, the replacement tax rate on a consumption tax basis would have to be -- the rate would have to be that high. also they're extraordinarily regressive taxes. individual at the poverty line would be paying a 25% rate on his or her consumption just as would somebody making a million dollars a year. so it would be, it would involve an extraordinarily regressive shift of tax burden. i also think we are an economy that is driven by consumer demand. i cannot think of anything that would be more guaranteed to put the economy in a recession than increasing the price of all goods and services that we purchase by 20-25%. >> host: we'll give brad on twitter the last word here. he says negotiate and simplify, let the republicans lower taxes and get rid of the amt. john buckley, thank you for your help this morning in helping us try to understand the alternative minimum tax, appreciate it. >> guest: okay, good. >> in a few moments, a discussion of house spending cuts in the so-called fiscal cliff. in a little less than an hour, more about the fiscal cliff with republican representative tom cole from oklahoma. then the head of fema testifies on capitol hill about the government's response to hurricane sandy. and later, senate debate on the u.n. treaty for the disabled. ♪ ♪ >> this weekend on c-span3's american history tv, follow harry truman easeleddest grandson to hiroshima as the city prepared to mark the bombing of the city in 1945. >> you know, everybody has their own view what happened, and i, i don't, i don't want to argue survival with anyone in japan about the history. i think we're past that. my whole purpose for being here is to listen, to honor the dead, to listen to the living and to see -- to do what i can to see this doesn't happen again. >> clifton truman daniel will join us sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> now, a discussion of how the military and national security might be affected by spending cuts scheduled to take effect the first of the year. part of the so-called fiscal cliff. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, was joined by the chairmen of the senate house armed services committee. this is a little less than an hour. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. my name is. peter:rerson -- peterson. i want to give you, first, a review of our foundation and why we are supporting the project you're going to hear about today. starting about 30 years ago after studying the profound demographic trends and the vast and unfunded promises that we had made, i decided that our projected long-term -- and i emphasize long-term debts -- were not only unsustainable, but a primary threat to our future. speaking of unsustainable, in the nixon white house in which i served, herb stein was chairman of the council of economic advisers, and he used to say if something's unsustainable, he said it tends to stop. or he said if you don't like that, if your horse dies, i suggest you dismount. well, i think we've been behaving as though we can ride this debt horse more or less indefinitely. in lieu of a quiet retirement and as a confirmed masochist, i decided to set up a nonpartisan foundation whose principal mission would be to increase awareness of the long-term debts and various solutions and try to get something done. never in my experience have our fiscal security, our economic security and our national security been more closely linked. indeed, in the words of admiral mullen, the single greatest threat to our national security is our debt. we are endlessly reminded that everything must be on the table, including defense, which accounts for about 20% -- as you probably know -- of the budget. but defense doesn't really seem to be on the table in terms of widely-discussed solutions or strategies. instead, we confront sequestration, a thoroughly bad idea for getting a defense budget or any other budget. unless we take action, we could face a fiscal or economic crisis that forces cuts to our military priorities, steep and arbitrary cuts that are neither coherent, nor prioritized. the question is, can we and how do we achieve savings that can improve our fiscal outlook while meeting our national security needs? to quote admiral mullen again, he said the pentagon budget was basically doubled in the last decade, and in doubling we have lost the ability to prioritize. to make hard decisions, to do tough analyses, to make trades. we also need a review of our defense strategy that makes sure that we are preparing for the threats and risks of the 21st century, not those of the past. the foundation has funded two efforts along these lines to help advance the best ideas for improving our defense strategy. earlier this year we funded a project by the stimson center which brought together 15 defense experts to examine our strategic defense priorities in some detail and how they should be reformed. today we announce the new coalition for fiscal and national security. the coalition, chaired by admiral mullen, includes senior national security defense and economic officials from both republican and democratic administrations stretching back to more than 30 years as well as leaders from the congress including some very distinguished gentlemen here today. all have served our nation with distinction, and they are joining together now to say very clearly that our leaders must find solutions to our long-term fiscal challenges, because our nation's security depends on it. it's now my pleasure to introduce the chairman of the coalition, admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, capped a very distinguished 43-year career in the united states navy including service as chief of naval operations. wile serving in the -- while serving in the navy, he also managed to obtain advanced management training at the harvard business school. few have the combination of practical military experience and sharp budgeting and management knowledge that admiral mullen possesses. respect for mike mullen is a major reason so many distinguished individuals chose to join this coalition, and it's now my pleasure to add -- to introduce admiral mike mullen. here he is. [applause] >> thanks, pete. and thanks for your leadership on this project which, as you said, goes back decades. and i really do appreciate all of you coming here today at what is a truly critical juncture for our nation in terms of our national security. our economic viability and our continuing leadership role overseas. it was in response to a reporter's routine question more than two years ago he first raised these concerns. he asked me what's the greatest threat to the united states' national security. as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, i got asked that all the time. i answered in two words: our debt. i think i surprised him. today 15 former senior national security officials who served across eight presidential administrations have formed a coalition to stress the need for elected officials to act. for not only has the passage of time exacerbated some of the economic problems, it has revealed a perhaps equally-dangerous political one. our inability to grapple with pressing fiscal challenges represents nothing less than a crisis in our democratic order. compounding the instability and unpredictability in a volatile world. our propositions for this coalition are simple. the national security of the united states depends on its economic health. that health must be insured by averting the immediate crises and by laying the groundwork for a rigorous, long-term program of debt reduction, smart investment, economic growth and lower income inequality. in national security spending, we can target investments much more efficiently in response to threats that are evolving before our eyes. and resources need to be shifted toward nonmilitary elements of our national security posture. in the immediate term -- and by that i mean over the next four weeks -- we must avoid driving our country over the fiscal cliff. no partisan ideology is worth the cost to our nation. but just averting the disaster and kicking the can on the tough, structural decisions needed to place our economy on a sound footing for the future is not enough. we are calling for a framework built out over the next ten years to reduce the deficit and restructure fiscal policy. so as eventually to bring the budget into balance. this framework must include tax reforms to raise more revenue, encourage growth and enhance progressivity. it must include parameters defining future levels of debt as a share of the gdp. and a date by which the budget will balance. and it must include changes to discretionary spending, entitlements as well as defense. our elected leaders should launch an expedited process to enact legislation that will construct this framework many 2013 -- in 2013, including powerful but appropriate default and enforcement mechanisms. without a recalibrated, sustainable fiscal policy, the united states' international standing will decline, and its national security will be undermined. such an outcome would be bad for the united states and, in our view, bad for the world. as pete said, he and i are joined here today with three, by three distinguished individuals. er is slams of america for -- servants of america for decades who made a difference, who had to come up with tough solutions to very complex problems. and it's been a real privilege for me to be with them in approaching what this coalition and those who aren't here today has brought together to try to inject some energy at the right place at the right time. so next up here will be senator sam nunn, longstanding chairman in senate armed services, who understands our country and our national security as well or better than anyone i have ever worked with. senator none -- senator nunn? [applause] >> well, first, thanks to pete peterson for getting this group together and for so much else that pete and michael and the peterson foundation have done in terms of bringing attention to the fiscal challenge we face and mobilizing support for a rational and sane fiscal policy. second, admiral mullen, thank you for your tremendous leadership both in the military and as a citizen in the recent months. you have led the way, and your statement that basically the biggest risk that we have to national security is our debt and our unsustainable fiscal policy is one that i totally endorse and agree with, and i commend you for making it, because your impact is very powerful. so that's my, really my first point. my second point is that even if we avoid the short-term debt crisis, the so-called cliff -- and i hope that we will -- the interest on debt in the years to come will increasingly dominate the budget and pressure defense in a very serious way. so without addressing a long-term, ten-year solution as admiral mullen outlined, the defense budget is going to be under increasing pressure. that is inevitable and, of course; the interest rates have not even started going up, which is also inevitable at some point. third point i want to make is that the problems within the internal defense budget and the dynamics of the internal defense budget also make the problem more difficult and more complicated. and also require a longer term to address some of these costs. first of all, the rising health care costs, second, retirement costs and, third, procurement and efficiency. each of those has its own individual complexities, but all are enormously important so the budget within defense is going to have to be addressed even if the top line is one that is a rational top line. in other words, we have entitlements within the defense budget now which are comparable to the entitlements that all of us know that we've got to deal with outside the defense budget. my fourth point is that the debt and the fiscal picture make diplomacy and development in very poor countries of the world as well as what bill perry has for years called preventive defense, makes all of those more difficult and less feasible and thereby increases america's risk and increases global instability. because we are not in a position to do things that we otherwise would be in a position to do in terms of shaping the environment to prevent war. so in my view, america's fiscal picture increases the risk of conflict around the globe. maybe not always involving the u.s., but certainly the risks are increasing globally based on our fiscal picture. the fifth point i would want to make is that the budget deal requires us to deal with a full deck of cards. and those people who keep wanting to take things off the table, in my view, are not being rational in terms of addition and subtraction. and when i say a full deck of cards, that includes defense participating in deficit reduction. this cannot be in the case of defense a sledgehammer approach. it's going to take a long runway dealing with these issues over time to give the defense department, and they can make, in my view, very significant changes in the budget, but do it in a way that does not damage our security. doing it abruptly as the fiscal cliff does or in a very compressed time frame is not only inefficient, i think it endangers our security and our risk. my final point is that the missing element in this town is primarily political will, and i say that in regard to both political parties. and the solution, the solution that has to be forthcoming in the weeks ahead and the months ahead require our leaders -- will require our leaders to, first of all, put our nation first. that has got to be the primary focus of our political leadership, to put the interest of our country first. so thank you, pete, for your leadership. thank you, admiral mullen. and it's always a great pleasure for me to be here with john warner and ike skelton, two individuals i have enormous respect for. and i'm not sure my role is to introduce either one of them, but, john, are you next or is ike next? ike's next? well, ike, it's a great pleasure to be here with you. ike skelton. [applause] >> thank you, sam. pete peterson, thank you or for your vision in putting this effort together. you could not have a better chairman than admiral mike mullen, and his leadership in the past has been outstanding, and it will continue to be outstanding through this effort. the late barbara tubman, historian, author, once wrote a book entitled "march of folly" where she talked about how certain countries took action and measures that were contrary to the interests of their own country. i think that we are close to writing another chapter for barbara's book should we go into sequestration and not have this challenge before us settled and settled properly. i have spent some 34 years in congress, i have worked well with the gentlemen on this stage, and i can tell you good stories, positive stories about sam nunn and john warner and how we worked out some very difficult issues. but we got them done. i think sam's absolutely right that it's a matter of political will. let me, let me say that thetive of not producing a solution to this debt crisis, the so-called fiscal cliff, could bring about the sequestration that is the slicing of the military right in half. that would be a disaster in many respects. across the world people would see we can't handle our own country well, our own defense well. people across the world would see us failing to fulfill the duty of the constitution to provide for the national defense that's up to congress to do that. but after we get this done -- and let's hope that it does come to pass -- a second challenge is out there, and that's the challenge to glue together a strategy that will keep this country safe and secure. back in the 1947 era george key man sent what's known as the long telegram from moscow to the white house spelling out the rise of the soviet union and its intentions. president truman, my fellow missourian, and his staff glued together the containment strategy which stayed in effect through admiral -- excuse me, through general eisenhower's presidency and later until, as you know, the wall in berlin came tumbling down, and the soviet union imploded on itself. the strategy worked. after we get this solved, it's important that we glue together a national strategy. it's going to be different. there's not one single threat out there, but many. terrorism, force upon force, state against state challenges, and that's what we must do. and we must nurture those in the war colleges and in the state department who have that strategic vision, that ability to glue together a good strategy and make sure that it does come to pass. so i'm hopeful we can solve the problem, that the congress can come together as we did for many, many years in tough, tough, difficult choices. and if you watch the comedians from time to time, you will see larry the cable guy. and let me take a frame -- a phrase from him to the congress. get 'or done. thank you. [applause] >> i remember giving a graduation speech one day walking down the aisle, a little graduate pressed a little note in my hand. so i read it during the invocation it was a very brilliant piece of wisdom. it said blessed are ye for the brief shall be reinvited. so i'm going to be brief, colleagues. you've all handled it very well, but i've got a short message. first, to my really friend of decades, pete peterson. you exemplify those in this country who have been given the privilege to rise to economic strength and material means, and now you're paying back to your country what it did for you. and, admiral, you and i have been by each other's side for many a year. i can recall when you first became rear admiral, and you have served your nation, and thank you for stepping up to take this on with pete peterson. to my colleagues, my old sidekick, sam and i were chairmen. he was a chairman, i was ranking for years. ike was in there, and we were drilled in the school that our leaders told us you got a problem, mr. chairman, the ranking member, go solve it, do not bring it back to me. and we went into those conferences on that defense bill day after day and night after night, and it wasn't until we reconciled the difference between the leadership and both the house and the senate. and then we presented the majority leader and the deputy, whatever, in both houses a bill. and got it done. that seems to be lacking today, and i want to talk a little bit about that one point. they have just the important of defense, and i wish to associate myself with your words. we cannot take a sledgehammer. we can reduce it, but we've got to reduce our defense spending somewhat gradually, but it should and will take its share of the cuts. but it has to be done very carefully. because as ike pointed out, we live in a global society. we are the only real, major superpower. and what we do affects the whole world. so this problem that we have is not just for the citizens of this country, it is affecting the livelihood, the ability of citizens all over the world rich and poor and of all faiths. so that's a heavy responsibility that's on our president and the congress. but under the framework of our constitution, we have to come together, the two branches of government, resolve our differences for the betterment of all. one thing about every single member of congress, they raise their hand, they said they support the constitution of the united states. and i'm just going to in a very simplified way read the preamble which says it all. and if we're to remove the uncertainty, that is the most ip sid yous problem -- insidious problem we have today; the uncertainty that this great republic can and will govern itself and in that way help the world. we've got to go back to this which every member used to carry in his pocket. we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, so forth, track quillty, provide for the common defense. that's what we're talking about, providing for the common defense in a careful, measured way. and secondly, promote the general welfare. it's not just the welfare of the haves or the have nots, it's the general welfare of all citizens of this country. and secure the blessings of liberty under this constitution. members ought to simply read that and say to themselves, well, what can i do? well, our press release says they should communicate with the people. and i'd like to pose a challenge, because here assembled -- and i thank each of you for coming -- are the people that hold the levers of communication. and we've only got a short period of time to communicate. and i think we should communicate to those people who are benefiting the most in this country from their economic status. that status having been achieved in a large measure by many years of hard work, sweat, toil and taking risk. but now is your chance individually and collectively to step up and communicate with your members of congress. the major donors to the members and others, those who benefit the most, have the most at stake by what we call the working with the transfer and update of our tax structure. communicate now like you've never communicated before with your member of congress. your letter, your communication, however you choose to do it -- particularly if you're one of the major donors -- will have an impact on that member. they need to know back home their support will support them again if they seek re-election. it's as simple as that. azzam, ike, others said -- as sam, ike, others said, it's encouraged. the question of whether or not this great public which happens to be the oldest, longest form of democratic government today can continue to roll on. that's what's at stake, and we've got to remove that uncertainty and show we understand under the constitution what governance means. let's govern. now we'll take the questions. thank you. [applause] >> we're happy to take questions. >> yes, sir. my question involves whether or not -- >> do you have a mic? >> -- you believe the american people clearly understand what's at stake. we've tended to not focus, i don't believe, with adequate pressure and clarity on what will happen if we continue. i've only seen one study myself of the various options for how the economy will react if, for example, we go to the window to raise more money and simply fail or fail without a sharp increase in interest rates. that would be one scenario. another scenario would be the repeat of the suez canal crisis where i guess it was our own president eisenhower who informed anthony eaton that if they didn't pull their troops out of suez when they landed to take it over from the nationalization by nasser, we wouldn't roll over their dead. they left. i'm just not sure as i go from seminar to seminar that the fix the debt this morning, for example, there was no one sitting there like yourself or someone else that says i am the person who represents the debt, the negative costs of no decisions, the negative cost or the -- costs always are negative -- the cost of continuing where we're going. have we adequately communicated that to the american people that it's not just an individual's re-election that's at stake, it's jobs at stake? we could see another recurrence of 2008 and '9 very easily with an order of magnitude greater. we could see a recurrence of the energy crisis where i first met mr. peterson when he was secretary of commerce which completely blindsided the government. what could we go to get this out in a clear way that's convincing? >> wow. no, go ahead. >> you're the chairman, but this is a summing i've thought -- a subject i've thought a bit about. i tend to think of two possible crises. one is a short to medium-term crises in which as we experience partly at the time of the debt limit debacle and the supercommittee debacle, financial markets lose confidence in our country, and you have a european or a mini european-style crisis. that's the short term at which point it's very hard to get money, interest rates go up and o forth. so forth. but even in the best case if we don't take action, you have a long-term growth crisis. why do i say that? what does it take for us to grow? it takes investment in the future. it takes investment in plant equipment, in r&d, in science education and infrastructure and so forth. the question many people, sir, don't want to consider is where do we get those resources with those enormous debts? i asked our research department if they would make a reasonable prediction of how important interest costs would be if we did nothing, and their estimate without any explosion in interest rates was as follows: within 25 years or so, our interest costs would jump from about 1% of the gdp to 12% of the gdp or roughly four times the total investment made in r&d, science education and infrastructure. and if we ever permit that to happen, we will have assured that we're going to have what i call a slow growth crisis. and that's at least my way of formulating what happens if we don't do anything. but, mike, please, take over. this is your meeting, not mine. >> well, one of the things i don't claim to be here is an economics expert, although it's from a national security standpoint, and i've felt this way for years, that it's not just about the health of our economy, it's around the world, it's the health of economies that generate positive outcomes. and the opposite is true as well. and from the defense standpoint, i think as senator nunn pointed out, i mean, if the debt continues to grow, it's just going to continue to eat at us. and when you put in the kind of time bombs that sequestration is -- at least that was the intent -- it was supposed to be so heinous that congress would never permit it to happen. and yet we're on the verge of it happening. and for a force that has been fighting for over the last decade and is stretched and stressed at a time when there is clearly increasing pressure on the defense budget -- and i'm one that has said for a long time that defense ought to pay its fair share, but what i worry about in terms of immediate impact and maybe, i think, to get to your, to a part of your question, do people understand this, i worry about the acceleration that going over that cliff creates to create a hollow force very rapidly. i mean, we're halfway through the fiscal year, so half of the money is gone. if the president does what he says he's going to do, he takes the personnel accounts out of the, out of the -- off the books, if you will, from the standpoint of any cuts at this particular point in the time. so you have the totality of the cuts focused on a very small percentage of the budget. and that gets into operations and training and maintenance and the kinds of things that really short suit ourselves in the near term. but just like pete -- and i think senator nunn said the same thing -- i've within concerned for -- i've been concerned for a long time that we get our heads up and look at, have a long-term strategy here. and being involved in this project, one of the things that struck me was at the end of world war ii and as we started to grow at some point, you know, the percent of the global gdp that the united states was was huge. that's no longer the case, obviously, because we have many other growing economies and, i think, opportunities in a world that is so interlinked. and i've been around the world in many places that are asking questions about the united states and where we are going. i would hope and maybe it takes a crisis like this to focus the mind of all, the minds of all americans that this must be resolved. certainly, it seemed as if it was a very important issue during the election which involved an awful lot of the american population. i would just hope that that emphasis and that focus would bring a solution set both for the near term as well as the long term. the longer term if debt keeps increasing, i mean, basically the pentagon budget, the national security budget just gets smaller and smaller. and we are becoming more and more unable to carry out the requirements that exist for us as a national security team. not just the pentagon, but the state department and more and more other parts of our government who are involved in national security. >> hi. kate brandon from politico. i was wondering if there's consensus among the group about the size of additional defense cuts that the pentagon can weather. and a second question is, um, how will we know whether they've merely kicked the can down the road or whether they've laid the groundwork for a larger deal in 2013? what will those two look like, i guess. thanks. >> i think there is -- the pentagon has taken approximately in the '12 and '13 budgets, assuming the '13 budget goes into effect, about $900 billion out. and i think there is consensus in terms of what senators warner and nunn have said which is we need to do this over an extended period of time in a way that has a gradual enough slope so that the pentagon can actually plan for the future. if we, if we take out another half a trillion dollars, which is what's tied up in sequestration, and the way the -- as i understand it anyway -- the way the law requires the cuts to be taken, it really is, it really is an axe right at the middle which will be very difficult to do in any kind of smooth way. so i'm confident that, you know, with a little longer-term view the pentagon can be fine. and one of the things that the group agrees on is that both with that time and where we are in terms of our overall requirements in a changing world, the advancement of technology, the quality of the people we have -- and they're the best i've seen in over 43 years of having the privilege to wear the uniform -- that we will be fine from a defense standpoint. but i also would pick up on what senator nunn said, quoting bill perry. and i've seen this in countries and in regions globally where the failure to be able to invest in preventive defense, engagement, having a relationship, helping other militaries train in their own countries, the not being able to do that just increases the likelihood of some kind of conflict breaking out which may or may not involve us. and that preventive piece is one of the first pieces that leaves under this kind of pressure. i do think that with, you know, if this is well done, creating a framework that the national security team moving forward can put something in place which will address the needs specifically and can be done in 2013. i think falling off the cliff makes it very, very difficult. >> i've often said that i'm an example of having humbly served in uniform twice of great consequence. but i've seen this defense structure since the closing year of world war ii to today in 30 years in the senate and five years in the navy secretariat. you cannot break defense and expect to glue it back together the next day. it has to, it's like a mighty ship moving. it can be breaked down slowly and carefully, and it can work more efficiently. we recognize this. but it is not something you can break and then fix, because people are what support it. it's the young men and women of the all-volunteer force. world war ii, i was -- sure, i volunteered, but many of them were draftees. we don't want to go back to that. we don't go back to it because there's sufficient numbers that will step forward and volunteer. and if they see their country beginning to let defense crack and not be an organization they won't join, they're not likely to join in the numbers or the quality that we need. so never before in history, in my time, have i seen more urgency for the citizens to communicate with the congress. not the congress just talking, the citizens. it's a clarion call, i hope you put in your message, that now is the time for them to speak directly to their members and urge them to avoid this sequestration. >> [inaudible] >> bob samuels -- this working? bob samuels from "the washington post." this is for admiral mullen. i think the proposals of the administration are to reduce the marine corps by 20,000 and the army by 80,000 from their peaks, and there is much speculation that further cuts in the pentagon budget would lead to additional cuts in the both the army and the marines. if the united states was put in the position where it had to occupy and protect the oil fields of the persian gulf for an extended period of time, say five, six years, are those forces adequate to do the job? >> one of the, one of the reasons i at least was able to get through the tour as chairman is try not to speculate too much on hypotheticals. the reductions in both the army and the marine corps have been in the budget now -- i think they're in the '13 budget, so basically they've been on the hill, the beginnings of them, they've been on the hill for the better part of a year, and they are reductions both the chiefs of those two services and the chairman all support. clearly -- and i did as well when i was chairman over a year ago. there was a need to come down. there was an expectation to do that as we move from what was a couple years ago two wars to now the war in afghanistan where today we still have over 60,000 troops deployed. and as we move to come out of that war over the next couple of years. i think, i guess based on what i -- or as i said before, to look to the future the pentagon spends a lot of time looking at contingencies or possibilities in terms of planning. there is a view that it would probably -- and i am of this -- it would probably need to be a very high bar to put a significant number of troops on the ground in some country. that said, i'm also one that can go back the last 25 or 30 years and say that our ability to predict what we're going to do and where we're going to do it, our batting average is pretty close to zero. so that gets back to this got to be done very carefully. those troop reductions are not going to happen overnight. and, again, if there's a strategy that looks out long term and the pentagon has a chance to meet that, then i think that cop tin general says -- contingencies, whatever they might be, will be able to be met. i have great confidence in our men and women and in the leaders who lead those services as well. >> rich miller of bloomberg. given the possibility that some sort of action may be necessary against iran and in the middle east next year, does that argue for getting this thing to, you know, putting this thing on a sound footing now rather than having it sort of, you know, hanging over us? you came out and said especially kicking the can down the road is kind of not a real, viable strategy. what may or may not happen in iran sort of add to that argument? >> well, i think, i mean, clearly the uncertainty that's out there with respect to iran as well as other parts of the world is something that's very, very real. um, in most of or certainly what i have tried to counsel on over time is to do all we can to make sure we don't have another conflict break out in the middle east. that said, the economic impacts, global economic impacts of a, you know, of another war in that part of the world are, they're pretty draconian. although we can respond, we certainly focused on this for a number of years, and so i think your premise of -- i think us being on a stable, solid footing as rapidly as possible is the key thing and that that will affect should we get there, that will affect in a positive way our ability to respond to the uncertainty as opposed to the opposite. if we're unable to get on a solid footing and we keep eating at our security resources, that certainly creates a totally different possibility most of which is, you know, significant downside. >> -- [inaudible] with "the wall street journal", this is for admiral mullen and any others who would like to respond. can you offer any more detail on exactly what you need by saying we can do more with less? are you thinking of a strategy that relies more on drones and special operations forces? does it mean not making the pivot to asia with the kinds of forces we're talking about? what kind of meat on the bone are we talking about here? is there going to be a new kind of containment strategy you hope to put forth as this new coalition? where exactly are you headed? >> well, i think i've been one that has, and i've been involved in the budget world a lot in my career, but i have worked hard to stay away from that very simple but i think misleading phrase, do more with less. i think with leadership focused on where the dollars are going and as senator nunn said, more effective and efficient, getting our arms around the procurement costs, the costs of health care in the pentagon are -- they have grown at an enormous race, and they continue to grow as has been the case in the cub. in the country. those health care costs in the pentagon, which are significant for our personnel, are unsustainable. so, and that, too, is going to have to be, we are going to have to figure out how to temper them in a way that both meet the needs of our people, but also recognize there are limits. so the totality of that, i think, that is really out there that -- and i know that, you know, as i did when i was there and the leaders, general dempsey and others are very heavily focused on in the right now, on how to do this. mr. peterson spoke of comments i made a couple years ago which is our budget has doubled. and in that and in the crises of war and an awful lot of folks said, you know, we did not have to prioritize. we didn't have to make the hard decisions that many of us had to make in the '90s. we lost our analytical underpinning. well, that's all coming back to bear on the current problem. and i think if we do that well, my point is that we can spend less and actually meet the requirements whether they are unilateral requirements just for the united states to protect our vital interests or requirements that we address with other partners throughout the world. okay, we have time for no more questions? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, we'll focus on the so-called fiscal cliff's effect on the alternative minimum tax and speak with republican representative tom cole from oklahoma. in about an hour, the head of fema testified on capitol hill about the government's response to hurricane sandy. and then senate debate on the u.n. treaty for the disabled. >> we're at the new york state museum. this is our gallery that's dedicated to the history of september 11th and the attacks in new york at the world trade center. we decided with the gallery to tell the story, um, for the first moments of the attacks using objects and photographs from the world trade center site. um, this is a piece of steel from the south tower, the world trade center floors 7-9. we put it in a place where the public can actually come and touch it. it gives the visitor a real tangible experience. this is a piece of steel from the north towers, floors 71-74. this is a dramatically bent piece of steel, it's -- this is within ten floors of the impact of flight 11 on the north tower, and again, you can see the openings where the windows would have been and pieces of this metal strip that would have held the aluminum clad on the front of the building. every piece of steel is marked so you know which building, which floor and which side of the building it's on. so we researched that after we took in some steel. this one we picked because it was so close to impact, um, and because it had the numbers. it actually has the chalk numbers, 71-74, from the time of construction. it also has the numbers stamped inside the steel which correlates with that. >> this weekend join booktv, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles as we look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of new york's capital city, albany. saturday at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> now we're going to focus on the pending tax increases and spending cuts referred to as the fiscal cliff. from "washington journal," this is a little less than an hour. >> host: as part of our series looking at that so-called fiscal cliff that's looming, we're looking at different aspects of it. and today we turn our attention to the alternative minimum tax and the patch that could come from congress if they're able to work out a deal. if they do nothing, this will impact 30 million americans. joining us to discuss is georgetown law's john buckley. thank you for being here. john buckley, let's begin. what is the alternative minimum tax? >> guest: well, in very simple terms, the tax requires you to pay the greater of what you pay under the regular income tax or what you would compute under the minimum tax which has a slightly broader base. it disallows some deductions that would be allowed in the regular tax. in some respects it's very similar to the cap on itemized deductions that's currently being discussed. rather than directly attack preferences and expenditures, it essentially puts an overall cap on the benefit. there's no new ideas in this debate. the cap bears a very strong relationship to how the alternative minimum tax works. >> host: here is the form 6251 from the irs for the 2011 tax preparations. and here's part one, thetive minimum taxable income and all these instructions, 28 of them, to help you come up with whether or not you fall into the amt. how does this work? how do you know? >> guest: you know, i believe that you can only do this with computer programming. the programs tax return prepared. if we didn't have computerized tax returns, i do believe the amt would have been repealed a long time ago. if people really had to go through that form and tried to figure out and fill in all the details, there would have been a very strong revolt just against the complexity, much less the additional tax. it's exceedingly burdensome if you try to do it without tax return preparation software. >> host: give us the history of the amt. >> well, the amt in its current form was enacted in 1986. it had long been a goal of tax reform proponents to have a robust minimum tax. and their desire from a minimum tax grew out of the fact that they were unable to directly reduce tax expenditures. so they saw this as a politically feasible way of attacking what they saw as unwarranted tax expenditures. like i say, very similar to the current proposals for a cap. now, they enacted in '86 just at the time when their fondest dreams were realized. it was a very serious tax reform that really made the alternative minimum tax almost obsolete from the beginning. the only tax benefits denied in the alternative minimum tax after '86 are ones that most people would consider to be middle class personal exemptions, the standard deduction, state and local income and property taxes. those are the main deductions that are disallowed in the amt. after 1986 the amt was no factor. it did not apply to many people, it was not indexed, so it gradually began to apply to more people. the real expansion of the amt came in after the 1997 reduction in the capital gains rate. .. they just switch taxes. the capital gains rate in the amt is higher than the regular tax rate from and comes around $22,500,000. that was the first product spanish and they began to hit an awful lot of people. then in 2001, they reduce regular tax, but did not reduce the rate. for millions of people and i'm one of those, the 2001 tax bill only changed the name of the tax i paid. i got very little benefit in rate reduction because i was sure it over to the minimum tax. in my opinion, the expansion of the minimum tax is nothing to do with the absence of index. it is a result of the conscious decision in 2001 to hide the cost of the bush tax cut by leaving the area she peered >> host: said the alternative minimum tax is 20%. what you are saying this after 2001 if your tax rate was lowered to 25% or something come you still have to pay the amt, which is 20%. >> guest: that's correct. but you're wrong for incomes between $200,000.500000, the amt effective tax rate was $500,000. you hit the rate that incomes are lower than the income levels at which you would a 35% rate. there's this bizarre rate structure. >> host: why do they call it a patch? >> guest: they call it a patch because it is an ad hoc, one time, year by year patch with broad expansion. you could ask why do they call it a cliff. they have discussed this in terms of the patch. it's been a year by year increase in the exemption. the patch is nothing but an increase in the and t. exemption to prevent tens of millions of people from being forced to fill out the return that you have listed there. the only thing i would add is the patch. with makes this so critical in the discussion as we are talking about the patch for the 2012 taxi or. unlike arrest of the fiscal close, which affects tax rates that will apply next year, the patch applies to the return that we will all have to file early next year. so if there is not congressional action here, there is an abrupt increase in tax on the 2012 taxi or period in 2011, approximately 4 million people paid the amt. there is not a patch. 30 million people will be required to pay the amt in 2012 for the current taxable year and they will pay additional $90 million in tax. very few of them have any idea. >> host: is the irs prepared? >> guest: the irs took the unusual, but correct position. it position congress will do the responsible thing. so they did their tax programming for next year for the 2012 return, assuming congress would enact the patch before the end. i think that was the reasonable thing to do. i believe they will do that. however, it does mean if there is not a patch, the tax return idling is the next year will be quite the opposite. >> host: but want to welcome back tom cole, republican of oklahoma. house speaker john boehner sent his proposal to the white house yesterday. what do you think? >> guest: it is a great opening fire. it makes very tangible what the speaker committed to after the election, which is will put revenue on the table so it's settled them are not talking about how much and what way. it is an enormous step forward either republicans or concessions. not something we want to do, this something we recognize we have to do to get there. second, the speaker's proposal directs us towards what the real problem fire, which are entitlements. as for driving that come you can't pussyfoot around it. you have to have fundamental bill reform. while we like to run and budget may still end that would be the appropriate way to go, the speaker picked up elements of proposals that erskine bowles and senator simpson had made. again in an effort to reach foer. so the speaker needs to get credit for terrific effort and a great opening position but now hopefully will be a discussion. >> host: loopholes and deductions by which the grover norquist pledge to not raise taxes. >> guest: it's not up to me to say what they leap and what doesn't. keeping tax rates where they are is the real question. you can increase revenue without increasing tax rate honestly just a more efficient system that redistributes investments away from loopholes for things that generate economic growth and that is something that paul ryan of coors has been a leading advocate of. this is a really good proposal by the speaker and now is pleased to see a republican signoff. i think hopefully the white house understands that mean the unity of the republican leadership table, you sure you do sanity in the republican congress. >> host: use a copy of the letter with the leadership team including paul ryan, chairman of the budget committee. a lot of callers had to about the lack of details proposal appeared well to pull deductions to get rid of in order to bring in more revenue? >> guest: , a gun, there's an interesting debate and discussion on not naturally negotiating. the easiest way to do it discount the dollar amount and let the individual pick and choose which deductions they want to use. you could also in the administration is talked favorably to look at a percent of a person's income you could use towards deductions as well. either of those things are easier than going through line item by line item. after you start doing line item by line item, there's obvious candidates. they have to have their cast of defenders as well. >> host: were you given a copy of this proposal before it without their? >> guest: i thought the same time everybody else did. >> host: on leadership has been finished it the rank-and-file the rank-and-file republican caucus have not seen it. >> guest: they have by now, but they were consulted or prodding in that sense. you can't negotiate with 240 people in the room. i think the proposal the speaker put out is consistent with what republicans believe. >> host: jim jordan had this reaction. the bad news about the proposal is a tax increase because it hurts economic growth. he has a lot of people, conservative republicans as part of the study committee, including yourself. to speak or boehner have the vote for his proposal? >> guest: the real question will be to suppress and have the votes. the speaker put it out in terms of entitlements to not be part of it and i'll do in private will tell you they understand the strength and the deficit 90s and the thing for medicare, medicaid and long-term social security. the mere fact were discussing those things is good. in terms of the votes, if it's going to be a deal they will be those from both sides. reality is -- these two guys come in the president and the speaker had so with one another before. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck section in 2012. they came to another big deal about shutting down the government in april 2011, cutting discretionary spending the billions of dollars. he came to another in the debt ceiling deal as well which is a $2.2 trillion long-term deduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. they need to take it to another level. this is a bigger, more complex problem and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations. they're going to be together for the next four years. the president won the election, the republicans on the house and frankly are not likely to lose in a midterm election and a second-year presidency. john boehner is speaker for four years and hopefully this is the beginning of a productive relationship. >> host: unison news last week -- a >> guest: unintentionally. >> host: you said republicans should agree to president. extend the tax cuts for 90% of americans and tightly drawn for extending tax cuts for wealthier americans. given what was put up a speaker boehner yesterday, does that change her position? >> guest: not at all. more importantly it's the right thing to do. the two sides agree we don't want to raise taxes on 90% of the american people. we should take one of the line of fire so to speak. i want them to follow debate committee engaged in the debate. i think it will come to our side of the debate. but if their weight in the next 30 days their taxes will go up, they don't have a vote of confidence anyway mishandled the, that's what they're going to focus on. this has been a democratic point of leverage in the debate. my position would be, let's take up the table. that private complements both these proposals. it's not a contradiction. it does have both sides say they could do. to me it's a sensible way forward and i hope you will do it. >> host: how many republican colleagues agree with you? >> guest: i have no earthly idea. this whole idea came out before thanksgiving originally. we were having a deputy with meeting. my friend, kevin mccarthy solicited everybody's opinion. i think this is the way forward than we had a larger discussion with the entire with team and you guys are pretty smart about featuring what goes on around this town. somebody leaked it out pretty quick and all the sudden it becomes a sensation. it's really just a tactical question here. it's an important tactical question i think it's the right thing to do. >> host: have you spoken to speaker boehner? >> guest: i spent hours with him at the republican committee. the speaker and i have a wonderful relationship. he's been very fair to me and is always open, honest, direct through the speaker likes to say what she sees what you get. that's actually true. he gives other people the same privilege. you're about to say what you think. i've heard all the debates about the screaming. i still think this is the right way to go and happy to defend that. >> host: because you haven't changed your mind, there is a tree put out by reported a sense tomko will not say nancy pelosi's discharge position on the middle and come bush tax cut his office tells me. >> guest: absolutely not. you don't sign a discharge position. they wouldn't be enough signatures to do it anyway. i point out the made her with speaker pelosi i didn't see any democrats signing many with cards and discharge positions and certainly never enough to get a bill out for years. that's not the right way to do it, but the idea makes a lot of sense. it doesn't violate anybody's situation, so at some point the two sets of come together. i think would make the rest of negotiations easier. each side gets a lot of credit. >> host: if you believe that, someone may cure you and say something or putting polity and politics ahead of what she believed. just go this a negotiation between the different sides and you can't have people freelancing. our chief negotiators of speaker. i have enormous confidence in him. he's come to agreements before. i recognize that. my advice is offered in private, leaked in public. i think whoever did that throw the press about the last week. but it doesn't change responsibility should a conference. you also can discredit your idea that undercutting it. right now the discussion of the idea is good. i see more people coming around to it, but i'm not going to allow anybody on the other side to destroy him and credibility. that won't work well to persuade them to a direction i think it's appropriate. >> host: peter in oklahoma, go ahead. >> caller: hi, congressman. you're still saying the same thing you said at the town hall meeting for the ryan budget plan. you know i've read it and it's all about eliminating the social programs in the country. we all know that back here, but here's my fear is really not been honest with the people. i think the fiscal cliff is just a bit red herring to get rid of social programs. i've read the constitution and i also heard back asw zero, your district has the shortest lifespan in the country for women, the highest infant mortality rate in the country for children. highest per capita without health insurance can refile mississippi ahead of us in that area. you are leading the country. if the people of the united states want to see for you in the republican party, come and your district. >> host: i'd be delighted to have people look at my district. i was like to say is 14,000 farms and ranches, to tremendous military installations. colleges and universities, 11 indian tribes in about 10 years or so the best college football team in america. it's a pretty special place. i would argue with your statistics and i do think i probably reflect what people in my district in. i just won reelection with 60% of the vote and that's your kind enough to point out, i'm saying the same things i said at town meeting. having settled the outcome of the idea of divine budget is getting word of social programs is not so. actually it's about savings. medicare, medicaid, social security eventually although it's a much better footing than the two have to be structurally reformed. at the present every tax increase ethos for, he's got a very strong position in the negotiation. it wouldn't come close to solving the budgetary problem we have, particularly if he wants to do as they know he does protect 90% of the people from a tax increase. you got to work through these things. republicans have courage to the divine budget on the table. i very seldom have seen people put their fingerprints on something they know is going to be controversial. we need to see the same courage and the democrats in terms of entitlement spending. the speakers at a long way revenue. he's done for the muster publicans would've told you before the election they weren't willing to do. you try to do that in the grand bargain effort in the summer of 2011. i think were trying to recognize powers divided and come to the best you we can for the american people. if you want to solve the budget problem that can do. you have to do with reforms. >> host: that's it for line from the proposal by the speaker's office. 800 billion in tax reform. reforming the tax code could consume a year or two. how do you get that done in two weeks if that's the proposal? >> guest: it's amazing how fast this place could move and there's an agreement amongst major part nurse. remember we are not coming to this discussion with no preceding discussions. there have been many, many months, a couple years of negotiations between the administration republican majority in the house. a lot of the pieces are known. it's a matter of being together in some way to number one protects and enhances the security and prosperity of the american people and number two, control political support we need to do it. that is something for the president and speaker in their negotiating teams to work out. while they do it, and i would argue let's protect the american people about the negotiators negotiate where they differ and not worry about whether they're in the same site. >> host: thomasson granite falls, north carolina. republican collar on the air with congressman tom cole. >> caller: discretion of the rich paying their fair share, the democrats say 63% of the american people voted for that. a portion of this freeloading country i was surprised it was in height and not, but what someone else to pay their bills. i saw president obama on tv a month or so before election seen he wasn't concerned about the deficit. i have a question to ask that i've been wondering. to solve these people on medicaid that obama put on medicaid, does that come out of the medicare program? >> guest: yes it does. it certainly does. part of the reason i like the right purpose on medicaid, essentially to broccoli and the program to the states -- this is not a cut in spending come up with in the future increases to population growth and inflation, something like that. we found the states do exactly what we did welfare in 1990s. most people on both sides argue well. the great thing about paul's proposal as it's not new stuff. a lot of it has to do is another context. what's new is he at the political courage and skill to put in a package you could pass out. >> host: the geo-plan is to create a fiscal crisis of them privatize social security and medicare. just go absolutely not true. looks great in the fiscal crisis is not done with medicare and social security right now. our aim is to say those programs and expand for future generations. right now everyone is paying them more than their parents and grandparents stood typically don't make sense if this will get considerably less. medicare does deeper than not. let's end it with these things. is it not up on. for not talking about getting rid of the program. were talking about strengthening. >> host: middle-class americans and extending tax cuts if they don't get hurt. "the new york times" editorial on the house gop proposal says recent medicare eligibility age hurts working-class americans unable to work to 67 and is likely to increase health care costs. when he simply talked over in ideas as republicans seem to be doing, those long-term implications don't matter. monday's offer me simply intend to show the most conservative republicans they thought before compromises to come. for a one-off issue of party unwilling to approach the bargaining. >> guest: with all due respect to "the new york times" are not surprised a somewhat critical of republicans. they don't usually see the world we do and that's fair enough. having said that, this is a real good faith effort. by the way, 67 figure is something the president talked about in terms of its size. misrecognize demographic reality. we live longer than we used to live. >> host: just to clarify, raising the eligibility edge trim 65 to 66. >> guest: is in context with what else you have out there. we've done that with social security. we give people a lot of time. it's not like we do it tomorrow. undetected on the program are close. we changed it when i was in my 30s. it's not a surprise i wanted to check if 65 on my dad did, but i'll be close to 67 before be fully eligible for the program. that's fine. these adjustments in those programs that can be done in a bipartisan senate, just as that change over long period of time in which to protect people. again, there's a lot of room here. at the end of the day the government changes, you won't do it to protect by raising taxes on the top 2%. it won't generate revenue. >> host: raising the eligibility age cometh that all you have to do to fix the problem? >> guest: no, i like to write program which we do in medicare part d already have prescription drug it's worked pretty well. premium support guarantees recovery shouldn't iran budget, medicare is an option to choose. let's look at a federal rate and better set of benefits, because individual in control of their own health care to some degree. again, there's a variety of things the president has put out $300 billion plus medicare cuts and reforms. i haven't seen how specific those postals are, but it does suggest he recognizes there needs to be some changes in these programs. people just saying absolutely no change in medicare, no change in medicaid, no change in social security. the negotiators have passed them by. they certainly have a medicare. >> caller: good morning. you know, i don't hear people talking about other ways of raising revenue and be like the oil companies. one of the biggest thing is killing the economy is the high fuel prices. but the profits for the oil company are so big. you have to say how come they can't take less of the rest of the country can get back up on its feet. >> guest: first of all i would disagree little bit. if you look at percentage of investment committee energy which the state is heavily involved in the citrix of item in their profits are five to 8% on what they invest. microsoft and intel are much more profitable, paid much less in taxes as a percentage of total revenue. again, people always focus on gas prices. look at your heating bill lately. the natural gas burned out on the price of natural gas to 80% of what we produce in terms of hydrocarbons in my state is a quarter what it was three years ago. that's a wonderful thing. it's been an industry that. this industry so often vilified as quite frankly creating more jobs than any other sector and is not as profitable as high-tech. >> host: nelson colorado springs, democratic caller. >> guest: good morning, representative cole. i think the bush tax cut myself personally should be left to expire. has anyone ever calculated the amount of money the economy lost in the tax cuts are put in place of only 2% of the rich, and that she can't continue to pay the same deals with less money. i'm also, bringing the soldiers only pay out money for the contract there is than all the other good stuff would also bring bring down the deficit. pitcher congressmen, i don't know how much money you're making, so you have voted against your check with the tax increase. >> host: you covered a lot of great ground. first of either happy to know congress hadn't had a pay raise in five years, certainly hadn't deserved one. not arguing that it should. we actually cut congressional budgets the last two years by 11%. if u.s. people make sacrifices, you got to make some yourself and particularly republicans have done not in the house. cannot say much seen much in the senate unfortunately we peered in terms of saving money on defense, the two sides agreed to over $500 billion over a decade in defense cuts. is this funny money? is it real? this is not something i'm in favor of because we live in a dangerous world. we have 565,000 person army. it will be 490. we have 220,000 in five years. we wanted to have 313, chris will have 288. so this is your reduction not just bringing people home, but the size and capability of the force. our secretary defense secretary panetta was hollywood connoisseur in this in this direction as we can safely go. both sides, not every member of congress, the president is commander-in-chief of a dangerous world. i don't think he wants military capability lower and on our side of the aisle we don't. we say this much there as we can. in terms of some of the other things, after the bush tax came in 2003 in revenue is considerably higher than it was, generated a lot of growth in the deficit as recently as 2006, less republican majority leaving office was $167 billion. our problem is spending a lot more than we were only two, three, four years ago when the president came into office. our problem as we continue to put up content and programs to demographically our population age will double the number of people on medicare in the next 20 years. we should focus first and foremost for the problems are. it's on the spending and entitlement side. >> host: representative cole, if we restore the quicken tax rates come in 10 years we have the deficit debra should be. >> guest: i don't think we'll check the spending, but he is correct to generate it great to more revenue. if we did that, let's take a family of four making $50,000. $52,000 tax increase and again i don't think the president wants to do that. our side doesn't want to do that. going back to the clinton tax rate, the wealth of the average american families taking a terrific head meetinghouse clothing come four years ago when the president was about to do $4000 a year. this portion which is most of us has gotten squeezed preacher meant to say. i don't think adding extra taxes on 90% will number one be very helpful to them for helpful to the economic growth and number two, how much do you want folks to bear? again, freezing those tax rates for the overwhelming majority of americans is a smart thing to do. both sides say they want to. the fight was start the next day. i think we could do what i'm talking about the negotiations underway right now could continue and they should. again, doing what i'm talking about doesn't violate what either side is fighting over. they both say this is something we want to do. again, make sure we don't have some last-minute failure at the end of december. >> host: what gives you confidence democrats up later on agreed to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest americans? >> guest: this is where i disagree with republicans. the american people or leverage. number one, nevers american people as leverage. they're the ones talking about if this if this doesn't get done, everybody's taxes will go out. to solve the problem for 90% of the people. i love verses and spending entitlement. the president and negotiators are smart and able people and they know the revenue they're talking about will come close to fixing the long-term fiscal solvency. so let's take this out, let's fight. again, the president campaigned on an $800 billion increase which is magically morphed into 1.6 trillion in the last three weeks. we could essentially say the speakers already put that 800 billion commits evil. we can argue over how to do it. are we not raising rates is much superior. at the end of the month, these rates expire and that's something my site forget. holding fast to keep taxes from going off. it will take a proactive measure by the house, senate and president, different parties to get something done. this would be a big piece that would take worry off the minds the american people. >> host: what are the obstacle of the fiscal cliff? >> guest: it's an optimist in the christmas season. we got right to the last minute before what could've been a government shutdown in april of 2011. because the last minute on the fiscal cliff. i don't think it's a good way to do business. >> host: if we were to go over, what happens? >> guest: well, you know, probably congress would be back in session pretty quickly and hopefully we would do something like i'm talking about right now. that's what we should do it early. and continue to negotiate. it's not just a question of dollars and cents. effort some people say let the race club in republicans get some data call that a tax cut. people lose faith in the institution and the political leadership. trust is a very funny commodity. you have it until you don't. when you lose the trust of the american people it's not like you get back to doing the right thing the next day. we should convince the country and the markets that can make smart decisions and to compromise and again this would be a step in the right direction of showing we can work together. we can put the american people first. again, we can continue to fight over things without putting them in harms way. >> host: robert altman writes today in the "financial times" by the fiscal cliff will be a burden. he said one reason is because capital market will make members of congress reacted do some thing. it's a powerful force repeatedly forcing outcomes with clinical processes cannot. >> host: there's something to what he says. nothing like a 1000-point drop, which by the way, whether you think you are in it or not you are because her job prospect and everything is tight. a lot of people have investments that releasing it. i would agree very much with what he has to say. but why do we have to wait that long? we are about one big were to be distillate from the canadian economic growth in this country. there's a lot of things out there. i don't care which side of the political divide your on. when there's opportunities for americans this is something that we can make a good deal, a smart deal, why still a closer compromise, we can actually help the economy by showing the political system can function. >> host: how about getting subsidies for farmers, corporations and big oil? >> guest: if you look at the republican farmville with bipartisan support a conservative direct payments for farmers, but also asks for reforms on the other side. foodstamp uses a chilly 47% or 40% in the middle of what's supposed to be a recount route. 41 states had more food stamps flashier than year before. again, when the economy was getting better. there seems to be had on both sides. in terms of subsidies for oil company comes out like they get a check. they get the same deduction manufacturers do. it's called intangible drilling and completion allowance and that's one of the things that's encouraged oil production in the united states. you don't get those critics overseas. encouraging production here creates jobs and energy independence is a smart thing. i suspect those things are on the table when you get in discussions about the post and whatever. the big loopholes and deductions are things like home mortgage, charitable giving. those are by far the biggest. how you do with those three is going to be the issue. >> host: john and hamptons, georgia, independent collar. john are you with us? john in hampton, georgia. moving onto james in frankfort, kentucky, republican collar. >> caller: yes, ma'am, i want to know why politicians don't get out and see what is going on with all these people on disability and setting up in the porch, smoking a cigarette two miles down the road to higher people do go down in check and the guys won't work. it's not legally over here to work in the government pay in the house the kids. it's time they got a business of supporting supporting case. >> guest: again, covered a lot of territory there. i'm a very conservative republican. i believe government should do as little as possible. having said that, there are legitimate cases where people need help in typically children, through no fault of their own in difficult circumstances i think it's an obligation there. so the question here is the right kind of balance. but if you set overall is the government doing too much? yes, it probably is. but i'm not saying everything needs to be rooted out, but it does need to be looked at. you can't get there in revenue alone no matter what the president says, so spending restraint, entitlement reform has got to be a lasting deal. >> host: >> host: stanford, massachusetts. democratic collar. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my most important concern is the details underlying budget i learned out on npr a month ago and that is $800 billion cut to medicaid over 10 years, which my understanding is two thirds of the money spent on medicaid or people in nursing homes. these are the elderly in nursing homes and disabled and it seems that quite a that quite a trick on an approach if we were to take that kind of money out of a population. what is their plan, that they became disabled? we are in this position because life inspect if he has increased and that is no fault of our own. >> host: let's get a response. >> guest: this is where washington language gets in the way of that being rational. there's nothing underlying budget calls for cuts. if justice were not going to increase as much as is projected to do. either way,, remember the president in his opening proposal and discussion has talked about $350 billion worth of cuts in medicare. they're really not cuts. they're just not going to raise as rapidly as it's going. it's going much faster than the population and inflation. again, it's not as if were not going to continue to spend money. it's simply block grants to the states. either way, continues to increase the amount of money going every year to the states by inflation plus a little bit of population growth. pulsar talked about cutting things. he sat to move in the growth rate to something sustainable because right now these programs are going to be bankrupt if we don't do some thing. you can't just willy-nilly raise the taxes. there's not enough money. >> host: capital gains could be taxed the same as income from work, including tax for social security and medicare. >> guest: i disagree. you want to get people to invest. it's not the same pay when you make an investment you don't know if he'll make money or lose money. by the way can you get almost nothing when you lose money. like $3000 a year. you need to keep people investing. i think that's a matter of a good discussion and worth having. as a rule, the lower the rate the better for investment in the better for job growth. in terms of medicare and medicaid, you'll see for upper income under obama carries authority been done. if you're going to make two and $50,000 here gopi attacks that flows into fun that thing. democrats added in the first two years an enormously new program. it's by the lake had a chilling dollars of taxes of its own, 600 alien over a decade and they're beginning to kick in now. your tanning salon has an extra 10%. the wheelchair will have a device check. if your high income investor, you already going to get hit with taxes to fund the president's health care proposal. >> host: at this included on budget proposals put out? >> guest: i think they are. we think something said to be open for negotiation or review. it's not going to do a full repeal. there have been areas where work done before. both sides came together. a republican plan to give it a 1099 forms to kill small businesses. i was a idea. this thing is it that break or fiscally for the country over the next decade and i will become progressively more apparent. >> host: linda in naples, florida. you're on the air with tom cole. >> caller: don't understand how you guys do the budget. medicare and social security would equate pay mortgage in half here. everything else gets cut 10%. no movies, i don't understand why start of the tom assured to most people can blackmail them yutaka both seniors in people who care their whole life. this is always that she go to to cut. i understand it's a big chunk, but if you cut everything off 10%, does not make up for a lot of it? my other question was maybe congress in the senate should be paid by what they do instead of just a straight salary neither benefit. you would have no salary. >> guest: i like the idea pay-for-performance. the senate hasn't produced democratic leadership a budget in three years. your point of how you budget in the senate, they simply don't. that doesn't take 60 votes. it takes 51. they got plenty of votes. they could go to one. let's see if senator reproduces the next year as we move into the fourth year. republicans have produced a budget. you may not like the budget. that's fair. if it comes to super idea, put it out and vote on it to be held accountable back home. your point of laser with medicare and social security, i would argue we don't. hence the last these politicians want to go, not the first place. i mentioned earlier in the show we've done over $500 billion in defense. some people think is wonderful. i have a different view of god, paul have fewer soldiers, fewer ships, fewer planes. we spent months on defense this year than before. the others are real cut in capability. an army is one thing you don't one thing you don't like to pay for it when you need you can produce overnight. haircuts there. a lot of other cuts in domestic programs. but the drivers said they doubt are health care, not social security so much. some of the democrats argued that should be done in a separate process. i think there's some merit in that suggestion. we should set out a framework for those negotiations will go break. people have paid into it. people trot out. the $119,000 medicare taxes than $340,000 in benefits. you can't do that indefinitely, particularly the population is exploding and it is the most baby boomers retire in the next generation. >> host: , defense spending cuts to the gop proposal from the house address that? take it away? >> guest: this is something both sides think sequestration is not a good deal. it is not a smart way to cut. this just across the board. you might want to do more something from us about acting so to speak that are less essential. it is on top of half a chilling dollars in defense cuts with birdie made. this mystery trillion dollars worth of defense in defense into was another another hundred thousand people in your army, for instance authority chopping. believe me, nothing is more expensive than more. more in the middle east triples the price of oil overnight. a strong america is pretty important to not only discourage an attack, but maintain stability around the world. for people that think we need to cut those, they are being cut. he still can't get there without doing with other matters. you're not talking about affecting anybody in programs now. you're doing exactly what type of meal, ronald reagan and howard aker did in 1983 single change the nature of social security and thesis are gradually people won't feel it and will make it solvent. we were much closer in 1983 that we are today. they did their job and extent of the program. >> host: one last phone call. in fall river, massachusetts, independent collar. first of all i have a comment. i paid into medicare. how come in 2011 i lost my benefit? i have to pay for those. [inaudible] i paid $93 a month to medicare. i pay 15% of my prescription costs, plus i pay $11.40 a month. so, when you want to take, when it should take from yourself? >> guest: great point. first of all we have. we cut congressional budgets and that's a proof reacting to do. i'm sure we will look at trying to do it again. it's hard to address individual case because you don't know what the circumstances are. if we look at the budget they don't go down, take a look. were not spending less on this program summit were a few years ago. part of that is beginning the first edges of the baby boom moving into this. nobody has a reform proposal on either side of the other would threaten any benefit this lady is currently receiving. nobody wants to do that. if we don't do things, her benefits of the affected drastically a not so we're trying to avoid. to give credit to the other side, so were they. were trying to reach some sustainable way to protect. >> host: the gop proposal doesn't include 200 billion in savings by adjusting the cost of living index, which could infect social security benefits. >> guest: it could, but probably for upper income people. this is actually not been a new idea for many years called progressive indexation where you don't have people at the lower and middle income level. warren buffett probably doesn't need exactly the same benefit. if he even takes a check for somebody making -- literally living on social security making $20,000. these adjustments will hit higher income people and most republican proposals called the wealthy for medicare and medicaid. just go do think she survived. >> guest: i think the democrats see the fairness if you will. people that can pay more should pay more to sustain these programs. most of the local discussion is people who take deductions pay taxes. they're usually at the upper end of these things. republicans have been quite willing to go after that constituency. entitlement spending or tax people getting payments are clearly don't need them to disagree. >> host: we are doing a series on the "washington journal." i must have been a policy areas of the fiscal cliff talks. today the alternative minimum tax. hope i said that a. >> guest: something that was passed in the 1960s to animate a small group of high income individuals that were not paying any taxes. it did not have an inflation adjustment, so now the group has grown enormously and we assume in a budgeting sense the way we budget that this revenue will come in. it's not going to comment because if we allow the text if you can look at tens of millions of america. so we fixed it. i would hope in the next year we could have a permanent fix to get it out of the budgetary budget. same thing with what is called sgr, sustainable growth with medicare and medicaid. we patched these things over. let's figure out a way to get it out of the budgeting process so numbers can be something they can project forward realistically. >> host: is this a big deal? >> guest: it is. if we were to not get it then it would be a big deal. we raise taxes on millions of americans overnight. this is one of those things they don't take about because we never let it happen. but it's over their head and if we don't fix a, hopefully not just patch it or get rid of it, you run the risk of a major tax increase on people not talking about the pretty average people. >> hopefully will answer many of those questions coming up. >> without explosions and knowledge in madison, but we have not coordinated care and all the services we have end up having so many cracks that the cracks or is harmful as diseases we are treating. you have to step back and ask, are we hurting people overall? on a global level, would we do it sometimes? of course that we've got the report saying 30% of everything we do may not be necessary in health care. when we step back from a 30% of medications we prescribed, to test the order, the procedures. this is something for the first time been called out as a problem. >> the head of fema on capitol hill today to testify about the government response to hurricane cindy. craig fugate was before the house transportation committee. the testimony is a little less than an hour. >> i will lead off. again, thank you for your work and efforts in participating with us here today. i was pleased to hear jury testimony matches the port of her pending legislation the senate and how you use some of that as a template for trying to take action and initiatives, but you do need to lie. one thing, i know omb -- i don't think they've given you a signoff on providing us with the specifics, but any technical assistance you can provide to the committee so we can improve the public assistance reforms in our bill, we would welcome that. the bill, 2903 over in the senate. we are welcomed to improving that. i heard a couple suggestions here today that we might consider in reform of our reform bill or additions to our reform bill. but we believe that he can hear in the testimony of folks that have experienced problem and a lot of the bill came from members who had experienced problems in their own districts or states, dealing with past storms have the tools that will help you. is that except to vote? can you agree to participate? >> yes, sir, mr. chairman. >> let me jump now to a couple of major questions. one, you indicated we have about $4.8 billion left in the account. you've moved quickly to distribute some fun and make up. how long will that last and how soon do you expect the supplemental bill to come to congress? >> mr. chairman, based upon what we are seeing an obligation as the court pointed out in already subtracted from not, we would look at early spring. we don't have an exact date. part of that is those projects come forth on the large projects coming with. we would look at early spring where we have to girder immediately sending. >> you probably won't submit to congress supplementary until after the beginning of the year? >> mr. chairman, i can't speak to that. with the drm stance we do not anticipate immediate need funding until early spring. again, thanks to the work of this committee and others making sure we were fully funded gives this capability of continued response. we work with other federal agencies how the administrations would be required for sandy. the one thing i'm confident it's a noble the supplemental funds on this calendar year, but this fiscal year in order to continue the response to all other disasters as well as the obligations that will be expanded this fiscal year from sandy. >> we have heard other disasters, irene, so back to katrina in which their obligations made. any estimates with that total this? >> aced upon the 4.8 billion, that is factored into but we are requesting. yes, sir, we were looking based upon your full funding outside of sandy, we had fun to go through the fiscal year based upon unknown appropriations, the close-up older disasters. so we were not anticipating outside of a catastrophic disaster and a request for additional funding. obviously sandy falls in that as a catastrophic disaster. it will be in addition to existing disasters we are working. >> some of the temporary housing assistance be provided will soon be expiring. but there be opportunities for renewal? you've heard one of the things he wanted to do was have had to explain what they doing and will not be sufficient? we were in new york and also manhattan, which is a whole unique venue for disaster in staten island, i guess long island, new jersey has very unique housing requirements and also higher costs. hud has committed to in the president says they will coordinate with your efforts. >> mr. chairman, the housing program were actually looking at three pretty substantial areas. the first was the temporary sheltering and that is where maybe the home was destroyed but they couldn't get back in. they had power outages or other damages. we would provide in cooperation state request on a car share basis short-term, namely hotels, motels measured in weeks and we are extending as the states requested. the traditional temporary housing where people qualify under leasing for a longer period of time for us to 18 months and we are working now. the other thing and this is something the committee looked at before is how can we repair damaged homes to the point where if they contain their but not permanent long-term work on would that would that be more cost effect is to maintain a hotel or renting an apartment? so we are implemented now. you hit upon the key reasons why we have been working closely with hud. our programs do not do the permanent work will be required to ensure there is sufficient affordable housing in these areas the devastation. .. >> i have also encouraged them temporary housing where there are different products on the market. the ones that i we're told were not recyclable, that they would be pretty subject to some kind of demolition or disposal at the end. 1100 that have been required. i'm sorry, not required, but acquired. >> these were units that we had the we moved into the area. we are working with the state housing task force and we did this not so much an urban area, but out in nonstock county and places in new jersey where they indicated that that could be a solution. we would much rather run than have the temporary housing. again, we are making options available to the state task force. how many they use, we are not sure yet. but we thought it was prudent to move them in the area based upon the initial numbers. >> maybe you could supply the committee, as they had told me the same thing. i have not seen any figures and wondered what would be? >> mr. chairman, working on what i've seen, i don't anticipate us acquiring any more additional units based upon the earlier reports. again, as we work with the housing task force we are going to find what the longer-term needs are going to be. honestly, table, have to how much of the housing can be built in the time frames that will be needed. >> okay. to put other questions. one is about hurricane katrina. we had a backlog. there there was a guy who is in a charity hospital, and i hadn't opened up even though it was close, we tried to move that and i guess you are breaking ground enough this year. the we have a huge backlog, thousands, i believe it was, it publicize such as we debated. we came back and change the law and instituted arbitration and our staff tells me that that was only good for hurricane katrina. we don't have that in the 2903. particularly on the public side, you are held to certain requirements and things do get sticky. but they need to get, more than anything, resolve. what do you think? >> i like to think that we make the best possible decisions that we can. i also recognize, particularly if we get a cost estimate, what happens when we cannot agree on that estimate. what is the appeal process? is the ranking member has oftentimes said, when you are appealing to yourself, the answer we usually be the first answer that you get. so i would look at that, sir, as we are looking at how the best facilitation could be achieved through a grant process or a cost estimate, and how do we ensure that the state and locals are provided ample protection on the federal side, but on the other hand, we don't create an unnecessary administrative which then adds a regulatory burden to the federal taxpayers. it has to be balance. >> i go back to mr. riley. showing you the large print that everyone can see, seven years of this going on, there has to be some ability for us move forward in a more expedited fashion. >> mr. chairman, that is one of the things that we have on all of those outstanding projects that they have not agreed with. they can always go to arbitration. >> again, the question would be, we have seen that happen in hurricane katrina, and we want our legislation to reflect opportunities so we don't have these situations occur in the future. so we will take the council -- the. >> mr. chairman, my recommendation is you need to talk to the governor's and the local officials. if we go the route of an estimate, how do we avoid multiple appeals of that, and how would they feel most comfortable that once we do an estimate airgun. because i think we continue to come back after that, it isn't an estimate, it's a project in another name. but if we go with the two estimate, i would talk to the states and local about how they want these assurances that later on they have not made a decision that cost them an unfortunate amount that they didn't get what they need to rebuild. >> again, we are looking for solutions and also ways to expedite the process. just one little thing. we have done a good job in the past getting water and food supply and things in reserve. i see now repeatedly again and again, this nor the storm was no different. the difficulty we are getting is with fuel and power, particularly with what we see with people in long lines and everything. it seems like we should contact suppliers. i have seen where they can put meters on some of these tankers and get them into areas. a pre-position a lot of the power assistance and you have done a good job with food and some basic supplies. i think that we need some plan for pre-positioning fuel and power. we will be glad working on that. >> mr. chairman, we have contacted with the agency that was providing emergency fuel to responders as well as some of the public. the total amount which is oftentimes competing with the same vendors we are having locally, i don't think we ever got to one 10th of what the average was on the average day in new york. we would need to look back at critical infrastructure and look at how we can ensure resiliency in the system. for us to replicate that on the scale that we have been required, it would be staggering. >> again, i don't advocate replicating. it somehow hasn't worked and i think that we need to find better mechanisms for power and fuel. most of our problems were from the public utility on long island. the others were pre-positioning, and then went off very well. my manpower to essential fuel generating and also fuel providers and that can be brought in faster in the future. so we should look at that. not getting into the weeds too much with the discussions on that, let me turn to ms. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been listening closely. what you have been saying about cost estimation. there are difficulties and you have talked about the appeal process. we got so fed up with moneyline on the table during this casino recovery process, that's how we came up with this notion. once in arbitration were both parties really have to talk about the arbitrator, that is the final result. i'm not sure that there's anyway to get around it, as you said. people are expecting a different answer. i understand that there was a project. and i'm going to ask you about that first. but there was a power project for cost estimation -- a half million dollars approved or so. while some show cost estimation, others which would have been expedited, others chose to go with the old system and part of the difference was that if you use cost estimation, you give them flexibility. whereas with the present system, you pay for other time. how did that project tell you cost estimation is just a figment of our imagination what did you learn from the project? people did not use cost estimation. why they didn't choose it, i would be interested to know. i would be interested to know whether or not choosing cost estimate -- nothing is worse than living in such a foreign type of place. where things are crazy month after month. did the jurisdictions themselves believe that it is better to have either been to go to cost estimation? and if they didn't use it, why did they figure they should use a? wanted to go for the sure thing? >> well, i would hesitate to state exactly why. i know some of the reasons for this. and the cost estimation, if it's going to be working and effective. we come to a number that we reach and we are done. that concern has always been we may not know all of the cost of the time the estimate is made. and the question as always, what if we find out it will cost more. if we go through the traditional process, we literally can come back multiple times as we see incremental cost increase, and we can add that in. but with the debris, we are gaining more confidence and having looked at what the models are. i think we can come up to much closer numbers. but it is always a concern that i am an applicant, i always want to come back and get more money. that defeats the purpose of doing it as a cost estimate. i think there is another part of that that does make more sense. and this goes back to the charities and other projects, and that is looking at a design phase where we found them to come in and take these complex products into their cost estimate, get their design, do all of the environmental and historical review. comment with a professional engineer certifying that these are the cost. and we agree to that. the second part is we issue them the grant and we are done. that would get a lot of these potential things out early and it would get a lot of the regulatory issues on the front end so that we know what the costs are. once we have an agreeable cost, then we issue the grant. as it is now, we do reimbursement process, where again we don't give them all the money up front, it takes time. we would like to approach that, but we think there are some technical issues that we have in the council may be more aware of this. we are running into issues were actual costs versus estimated costs and also what happens if the project comes in under what we authorized, what happens with those dollars if they have a surplus, and didn't have any recourse if it turns out the project cost them more money. again, we want to come back to more funds, which is part of the more traditional projects. we think if we can get the skill to make sure state and locals with these decisions, it is faster for everybody to do this is an estimate versus a project that is reimbursed that can take years in the rebuilding process. >> have we once and for all gotten rid of the process which perhaps was even worse for us during hurricane katrina where the government doesn't estimate and we paid for both of these estimates, and then we are caught in between these estimates that we have paid for. i thought we agreed that that was not the most cost-effective way to get an estimate. that we could agree in the beginning on somebody that we both agreed to come up with an estimate, and then we go with it. >> yes, let me give you a specific example. i was at the nyu university hospital, which was heavily damaged and flooded. i had my senior official bill roach with me. we were walking through the basement and senator schumer have brought us there. the facility wanted to know what kind of documentation did we need to get to assess the damage by seawater. and bill said if you get your engineer to certify it, we will not have to come down here and look at it. so we are -- again, i can't say it's 100%. there's probably somebody who didn't get the e-mail. but if you have a professional architectural end of -- engineer, we have been using that to be making a determination. >> that is a very important efficiency. i am very interested in this program that is being used in new york to allow people to stay in their own homes without power instead of going to temporary housing. i don't know if we've ever done that before. it does seem to me that that is a very important use. and as applied to people living in apartment buildings? doesn't apply to other states outside of new york? the only information i have is new york. >> yes, this is something that new york has asked. we have made it available to other states that have individual assistance. what we are looking at is the people that could not take power. this is where the power has come back on, but they have water damage -- we are providing funds to do more for this. if you are familiar where the temporary roofs we do to try to get people back in their homes -- what things can we do just get the power turned back on so people can stay in their homes and not have a much greater cost the taxpayers. we are doing just enough to get the power back on. in some cases with the way the homes are built and also water heaters. we are just doing enough so they can get back in their home. they are probably still going to need help from other programs and volunteer programs like red cross. but this gets us back to the power company and hooks them up and they can stay in their home while they make a temporary housing. >> as applied to people living in temporary housing? >> to be honest, i do not think so. we are dealing with an occupant where we are working with the housing authority, which hud is working closely with those on bringing in oilers to get power back up. this is directed at single-family, but hud has been working with those of the housing authority and those that provide low income housing, providing assistance. getting their critical life support a. >> so much of the housing was wiped out in certain areas. is there any reason why this approach could not be used in new jersey are some of the other states that were devastated by hurricane sandy? >> we are working with the state of new jersey task force and this is one of the tools that we are giving them as they look at what those needs are and how to best meet their needs. >> could i ask you about hud and fema. they have always worked when there has been a major storm. how would you describe the major difference now between this new relationship with hud, where they are the lead agency and yet fema you can see that we are talking to you first and foremost, they are still in charge of what the public has said. what is the difference between what you are doing now and what you were doing, for example, in hurricane katrina? >> i think what hurricane katrina there was a problem of not a concerted effort about what the housing needs could be. the federal government never really anticipated that kind of rebuilding effort and initially everyone turned to fema. the medicine do a lot of that permanent work. nor do they deal with the pre-existing conditions. they take what we can do and match it up with what hud is best at, which is providing longer-term housing solutions, and we will go far beyond housing. we have transportation issues that go far beyond repair work. we have corps engineer beaches that are authorized. as the damages mount, it becomes clear that we are not only dealing with the issues, but regional issues. and so having a cabinet level member reading the programs and funds and plugging it in as we go forward, there is housing available. what we don't want to get into is what we saw with hurricane katrina. five years later, people are still living in a trailer because there is no solution. this goes far beyond what the medes. the stafford act key part of the initial bill. but it does not get to the pre-existing conditions or the things that fema has historically not done well but other programs have done and it doesn't get to some of the regional challenges that we have in that area. >> hud will be dealing exclusively with pre-existing conditions and fema? >> i would let fred speak to that. i think it is rebuilding and looking at how do we work out long-term housing solutions, particularly given the density of some of the housing authorities, as well as other parts of the communities that were devastated. >> i have one more question. when we did the post-hurricane katrina act, in fact, after 9/11, when fema was made a part of the department of homeland security, we were focused mainly on terrorism. now, what we have learned that as a result of hurricane sandy and hurricane katrina, we certainly have done a lot to prepare in case we are faced with another tragedy of events. we are finding ourselves each and every year with a major unprecedented storm. i don't even know what is happening on the west coast. but that looks like something other than the usual rainfall. has -- being in the department of homeland security, has it been of any material advantage to fema, as opposed when fema was not a part of the department of homeland security, and as a state official, you have participated in the before and after of this. >> the short answer is yes. because of the availability of the other resources. i will give you an example. one of the things we have launched, it's a fact that fema has work force. it takes time to get people into a disaster area. we were able to leverage the department of homeland security into new jersey and new york to do the initial response support. that would not have readily been available without that. so i would continue to support that our role within homeland security, as you have directed in that, is the principal advisory to the president and the management rights in this environment. it is the additional resources we can tap into that enables us to actually augment our fema resources. >> thank you, mr. craig fugate, and especially on your work with hurricane sandy in particular. >> thank you. mr. fugate, i thank you for appearing before the committee today. i was informed yesterday that those of the state of maryland were denied some assistance. some of the poorest counties in maryland, these individuals are really going to have a difficulty rebuilding. can you explain the specific things that were lacking? >> along a line of trouble, it never addresses the individual tomahawk construction. we will do the availability of other programs such as small business administration disaster loans and, again, the state's ability to redirect grant walks to some of these issues. our hearts go out to those people. it is based upon the impact is the state of all. the president and concurrent at this point the information does not support a disaster declaration. it is not uncommon that in the same storm system, states may find different outcomes, whether it is tornadoes or floods or storms, but it is always based upon our best estimate of the information the state provides against the available programs immediate. yesterday i spoke to the president of the american red cross, the american public has been very generous. that continued support allows them to support not only those that are in the area, but also in those areas that have not been declared disaster zones. there are individuals and communities that still need help. it should never take away from the fact that people did have damages in the storm. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. major general watch. i want to follow you on the cd protection project in coney island, new york. as you know, they have been formidable to damage for decades because of an era of a previous army corps project in the area of coney island. it has been fully funded by congress, will he appropriated, and secured. i know you are familiar with the project as we discussed it in person earlier this year before the storm hits. now that the area has been devastated by hurricane sandy, it is more important than ever that the project be completed as originally intended and funded. everyone said that they would find a way to get it done. i assume that we haven't received confirmation of how the court intends to proceed. can you confirm that the court will move forward quickly as originally intended and funded by congress? >> sir, as you know, there is a problem with the funding and we are going to move ahead with the project at the lesser funding requirements. we will be looking at that. >> so that is a note to the full funding that was appropriated by congress? >> we will work with the authority that we have and the project will move forward. >> our contention was that considering the president's instructions, considering the legal ambiguity, i can't imagine anyone else should remain vulnerable, even with what just happened, and given that congress has appropriated all the funds and i gather from your reply that we will have a difficult conversation you what we have asked is that we try to tried to get any questions from mr. craig fugate first. >> that is the major general and other members, we promise promised to get him out as soon as possible. >> i recently wrote to you about environmental contamination from mold and other hazardous substances inside buildings following hurricane sandy. although some places it is not that easy. residents share hvac systems and common areas to the queen of has to be done in a coordinated manner. >> we will take that message back to our partners at the epa. the other thing is those public buildings and public spaces -- that is eligible for reimbursement as well. this is something that the secretary is working out. it is not clear what programs may be available. we are looking at what additional programs may be needed outside of those and it's clear that fema can support activities, particularly those of other areas. >> i appreciate what you are saying, and i thank you for that. what you are saying is there is a problem, especially in apartment buildings that are privately owned, where you cannot isolate each residence? >> we are not sure about those that are private and not public, how that would best go. a lot of this will come back to state and local health care codes and technical guidance, and we will work with the state. we know this is an issue that is something we have dealt with before. there will be scrutiny at what will be good to ensure air quality standards in these homes and residences. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you, chairman mica. i noticed in the testimony for mr. robert latham, he talked about the environmental and historical preservation that in each and every case, whenever you are dealing with an agency, every individual has to reinvent the wheel on those very fine consuming reports. it seems to me that fema could have a box that once someone has done that assessment, that also has to go through fema or another governmental agency. in regards to those reviews that can be used for everybody, instead of everybody reinventing the wheel. couldn't fema be the one to lead that charge? >> certainly something we have been working on. it comes back to how our authorizers have given us authority. we all have responsibilities and doing these reviews. since they all come from the original federal legislation, we are working on how we can reduce those findings. >> it doesn't make sense to me. you are all trying to work together. why did you come up with a master plan? >> we can and we have and we will take this back to work. >> mr. latham, you were the one that brought this up in your report. you want to respond that? >> i think part of the problem has been when there are multiple funding sources. part of that is during the rebuilding process when there are multiple funding sources or multiple federal agencies. multiple reviews assess the project in many ways. >> have you suggest that we ask that? should be done by legislation or neutral agreement? >> i don't know if i can understand all of that from someone who has worked at the state and local level. the fact that there is a declaration, the funding sources contribute to the rebuilding of the project as a result that was a disaster, i'm not sure, but i would say that maybe fema does take the lead. it will continue to drag out the process. >> thank you. >> mr. craig fugate, the second question is, in my history back in march, we had a tornado that devastated a small community. the governor does one go for federal help because we can get it done quicker and cheaper, and that there was a time gap between presenting the bills to the government and getting reimbursement. the testimony i read today that talked about the time gap between getting reimbursed and how it is costly to local communities. is there any way to resolve that? >> i would think the first response would be for the governor's request. it is within the capabilities and i would assume that they exceeded their per capita. what they may have been referring to is small business administration, where if you are appealing small-business, they had not moved forward to issue a declaration. they have changed that and we'll do that separately. as far as the reimbursement process goes, both louisiana and mississippi saw what we tried to do in the storm earlier this year. one of the things that is most immediate for them as the cost of the debris removal and the protective measures. historically we have always waited for the final bell. this kind of comes back to the estimation. we had been working and using estimates for initial funds for debris and protective measures often oftentimes, within the first 30 days or less of the disaster, we are using estimates, we are not waiting for final numbers. we are working to get money back in but was extended on the front and before we get to her mentor. we have started the process of getting that reimbursement on. we are not waiting on the final build. we have been pushing to get cash back into the communities after this one a declaration does occur. >> thank you. >> you have any questions for mr. fugate, mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have just one question. i would like to talk to you about the hazard mitigation. as i understand, it is 15% of the first 2 billion of public assistance and 10% between 2 billion and 10 million. we have two problems. there are counties that have significant needs, nowhere as significant as new york city, but we have our own needs and the question is, wouldn't we be wise to adjust that we will save our citizens a great deal of consternation and dislocation. >> i will defer to congress on raising this, sir. i also think we need to recognize that fema mitigation programs are not well designed for some of the things that may be required. it was going to be primarily a project that was funded through the army corps and it was a project that they got done rather quickly given the history of building a type of protection system. i would not assume that increasing the fema dollars, which will go to the governor and would have to be determined to the state, there may be other things that we have to look at the go beyond that, particularly with some of the coastal communities. >> if i may, i'm going to have the same questions for john walsh. with restoration to pre-storm conditions as opposed to the same issue, which is a way that would prevent future disasters or mitigate them as opposed to just getting to pre-storm conditions or to spending up to a certain amount. >> congressman cummings when you have a lot of folks already wanted to elevate the structure because they saw where the elevated homes went through the storm with very little damage. knowing that there is fema dollars, this is why we are looking at other federal programs that have been used previously to support those activities and we are taking with the original me are critical to the structure protection. whether or not congress chooses that, i think the administration is actually looking and warming theme is point of view to be that has to do with the larger products required >> we have 30 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> major general, i just wanted to tell you what an extraordinary team you have in philadelphia, not just with the storm, but does an exceptional job of dedication above and beyond. finding ways work with us with all the coastal communities and the outstanding work that they have done has resulted in an enormous amount of money being saved. >> this is their primary home where they have lost all their belongings and is there anything were in place where there is an assistance for these people? >> the most immediate assistance is fema. the individual assistant program, or they can register online at disaster assistance.gov. if they have registered and they are still working through that, we are providing short-term assistance as well as longer-term housing. you have to understand what we are going to do, and that is why we are working very closely and asking secretary donovan to take the leap. i think we can take the lead. doesn't make sense to go back where they were or look at things differently, and this goes back where there is a sentiment among the communities that don't just want to repair what was there, they won't look at how do we minimize people at risk next time they are not as easy to replace because people do not own them. it was a good place to rent and they were able to work and live in their communities we cannot repair all back, where will we assess where they go to school, where their kids go to school, where they work -- some of these issues will not be something that will get addressed immediately. we can deal with some immediate names, -- would make more sense to have housing solutions so they aren't horrible next time. much of what will be needed longer term is not programs that fema has. it is really the programs that hud and others have. that is why we look at this from the standpoint of the recovery framework. much of this is going to go far beyond. >> there lots of families who are impacted by this. the other question that i have, one of the problems that we had was getting the fuel to these places. once we get them to these places, they could hook up and as the governor said, it's not an issue surrounding fuel. it is an issue of how do you deal with that. many states have been coming back with requirements to look at pre-wiring. it is not easy to get a generator that. been doing some things ahead of time where does involve the private sector, it's going to be their money and also their customers, looking at pre-wiring and identifying key areas of the state would want to make sure that if the power went out, they could serve as a community. these are things that i think we will be working with our state partners with. >> i also think you should look at food stores for it is the other issue, obviously,. >> if history tells me anything, there will be a lot of retailers, particularly this food service industry, fantasies, gas stations, that we will be looking at pre-wiring, transfer switch, or installing generators. we have seen this repeatedly after major hurricanes across the south. that's where it becomes a business decision that it is much better to have that generator versus to deal with the losses and disruptions that occur when the power goes out. not just for days, but for weeks enact again, thank you for the work that you guys do. >> thank you. if we we don't have any further questions for the administrators, we will excuse you have at this time and we thank you for your participation. >> in a few moments, senate debate on the u.n. treaty for the disabled. in a little more than an hour and a half, a look at how spending cuts in the so-called fiscal cliff would affect national security. also, our "washington journal" series on the fiscal cliff with talk about the alternative minimum tax. we will also talk with senator tom cole of oklahoma. >> several liebowitz to tell you about on c-span3 tomorrow. politico post journalists and author bob woodward and marco rubio. a little after 8:00 a.m. eastern. at 10:00 o'clock, the senate appropriations committee will hear about the federal response hurricane sandy. fema director craig fugate and senators from some of the affected states. the house foreign affairs committee and the regional influence. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate voted on the u.n. treaty for the disabled. sixty-six votes were needed for ratification. sixty-eight to 38 the vote failed. >> i think it would be fair not to use of the time in an unfair way. i would ask that if they are not ready to use their time, that this be charged against them. because i think it is important that we don't give a part-time as a result of that. i ask unanimous consent that we not be charged that time. >> is there objection? >> the senator from indiana. >> in terms of our side, i would like to pursue the rights of our members to have the maximum amount of time as possible >> i see there is a member on the other side who is of the opposition. so i would yield. >> i would yield 10 minutes to the senator from indiana. >> can i ask what we just decided in terms of timing and rules? >> mr. president, i have pointed out that we have agreed to proceed in alternating side to side, we have about 48 minutes on each side. ideal for 10 minutes. >> without objection, the calls will be equally divided. the united states have long been a leader of those with disabilities. it has provided an important platform for the united states to continue its leadership. we have received strong expressions and support for the convention and a wide range of groups that advocate on behalf of the disabled. an important factor of the united states to support the convention has been the testimony received by the foreign relations committee. joining the convention will not require any change. i emphasize that again it doesn't require any change. in the existing united states law of policies regarding treatment of the disabled. and the statements before the foreign relations committee, the united states would assume in joining the convention. in order to } the importance of this point, the foreign relations committee specifically address it -- in the instrument of ratification, the current united states law for bills the obligations of the convention of the united states of america. on a related point, we also underscored that the convention will not be self-executing in the united states law. this means that the provisions are not directly enforceable in united states courts. and we do not confer private rights of action enforceable in the united states. these provisions of advice and consent establish important parameters. they give effect to the intent of the senate and they join in the convention that will not require any changes the united states laws and policies, with regard to the disabled either now or in the future. and will not provide a basis for lawsuits in the united states court. such matters will continue to be governed solely by united states laws. it is my hope that these provisions in the resolution of advice and consent will provide assurance to members who may be concerned that joining the convention can confer the rights for disabled people in particular areas where the convention can be used to acquire require the united states to change its policies for the disabled. with these provisions, the united states can join the convention. as an expression, an expression of our leadership, on disability rights, without ceding any of our ability to decide for ourselves how to address those issues in our law. the united states can play an important leadership role in helping countries around the world identify ways to extend opportunities for the disabled. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting united states with respect to the convention means of financing this goal. i would point out, mr. president, that many of us have visited with veterans, disabled veterans come as a matter of fact, in the quarters of the capital in the last 24 hours. they have expressed without reservation the fact that their lives would be enhanced in the event that we enable this because there are frequent the principles we have found usable means of helping the disabled. i believe that each one of us ought to be moved by the testimony of our veterans. veterans i have seen here in the corridors. those who have on behalf of the united states of america. this is a serious issue and a humanitarian issue. i emphasize again and again, the united states sharing the experience of other countries, the improved treatment of the handicapped is no possible provision in the treaty, and we have always served this greatly, if there could be any change in our lives. i think the chair, and i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time. he met mr. president. >> the senator from oklahoma. >> is to make sure people understand thoughts on this convention, it seems the u.n. conventions come up and i have been opposed to themcome and my concern has always been that of the united nations convention that it does infringe upon ourselves on establishing a bureaucratic body and the committee on the right and the conference of state parties. these bureaucratic bodies would implement the treaty and so-called recommendation that would be forced upon the united nations in the usa. clearly have a 1990 act. we went through that a few years ago. i was here that time. is considered to be the gold standard for the disabled. we don't need bureaucrats changing it in our country in the name of worldwide meditation. no changes to state law will be necessary if this crp is ratified. the crp can be amended. we talked about there are no changes in us. further, the ability of the committee on track committee on the plight of persons with disabilities, to investigate and recommend changes chips away at the ability of a sovereign nation and i know there are a lot of people who feel that no idea is a good idea unless it comes from an international organization. and i kind of thought the other end of the spectrum. specifically, the treaty could be used to interfere with the ability of disabled children to decide what actions are in the best interests interest of the children. it can be especially effective of those who homeschool their children. i have a daughter. the brunt of my letter, so to speak. she is number four, and katy home schools her children. she and i have talked about this. this is something that is very much of a concern in that community. those who decide that are not parents what is in the best interest of the disabled child, even in the home. the less than 40 organizations and tens of thousands of parents have advocated children and parental rights, they have written us and have written me specifically opposing the treaty. homeschooling legal defense fund says article seven of this treaty establishes the best interest of the child. the treaty establishes the best interest of the child. the legal standard, which would override the traditional fundamental rights to direct the education and the upbringing of the child with special needs. this could result in transferring a disabled child from the home to government run schools if these unelected and unaccountable democrats deem it necessary, even if the senate with reservations into this treaty. i have two letters that i ask would be made a part of the record at this point. i have to be made a part of the record at this point them out without objection.