Latest Breaking News On - New mexico - Page 16 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20130228

or send us an e-mail. here is the front page of the "washington times" this morning. sharing the stage, president obama and john boehner is today. joining us on the phone is ed o'keefe who is a reporter for the "washington post" -- bring us up-to-date on the sequester. guest: we are waiting to see what happens on friday where leaders will get together to sort out a way to move forward and the blunt the impact of the cuts or stave them off entirely. it will be a date -- date not entirely focused on this. all of them are going to fail. the democratic plan would direct payments to farmers, part of the farm bill in the house. taxes would go up on americans making $5 million a more -- or more a year. more flexibility to the obama flip -- administration. several senators disagree with this. that means there is exposed fissures among republicans in the senate who could not agree on a replacement plan to vote on. this issue continues to be, gay. host: -- the speaker has been saying for weeks of the senate has to act first. the house will focus on other issues. host: i want to ask you about bob woodward. here is the politico story. woodward at war. he is saying that a white house aide warned him. what is the talk any newsroom about this? guest: i will tell you i spent most of my time at the capital. i talk to people about it. he is a well sourced reporter. he has written several pieces for our section. the origins of the sequester. he is like everyone else, in interaction with the white house when necessary. any reporter who has dealt with the white house knows it -- exchanges can be intense. he has received some of that reaction that white house officials are known to share when they are not happy about the way things are being reported. host: what is the mood about tomorrow's meeting at the white house? guest: they are quite upset to wait until friday to hold this meeting. this signals that the white house does not seem to have much art as the to address this issue. there were replays of comments the president made. that is basically the attitude everyone has. if you look at this schedule, the house is scheduled to leave today after three o'clock. the senate is excited to leave today as well. in talking with some senators and members of the house, where they will be this weekend, most are heading home. most don't have full schedules at all. they kept the window open. it is a down weekend for most lawmakers who will go home or stay in washington and not necessarily do anything immediate to dress -- address this issue. host: one issue coming up is the budget in march. what is the status on capitol hill? guest: they are continuing. in march, we will see paul ryan's plan -- plan. the expectation is that normal order will be held to strike a deal on a fiscal year .14. --2014. you have this sequestration issue. you have the need to pass a continuing route -- resolution. you are also thinking ahead to october 1 when the new fiscal year begins. there is hope that even though there is squabbling about fiscal matters, in october perhaps the reset button will be hit and things will return to the normal budget and normal appropriations. we have to wait and see. what budget people are curious to see is how paul ryan would you raise the debt -- deficits over the next decade. indications are he is working on a plan that would require dramatic cuts in government spending. also increases and taxes. people will be watching and knowing full well that the house republicans will give it it's a blessing. we will have to wait to see if the senate strike a similar deal. host: do you know -- is the house leadership talking with the senate leadership? guest: we note that harry reid and john boehner speak on a river basis. they try to speak once a week. there were conversations before recess about the possibility of all this. we don't know but perhaps there were discussions on the sidelines of the rosa parks statue unveiling yesterday. the house majority leader have been firm. the senate we'll -- we'll deal with it great otherwise, it does not look like there will be significant progress. we have to wait and see. the way it works, sometimes these conversations are ongoing. somebody is coming to the floor or a bill can be brought up and things can get moving again. we are in a wait and see mode. otherwise, we are waiting to see things go at the white house and whether lawmakers will jump in on friday or wait until next week. host: thank you for your time. ed o'keefe for the washington post. the "washington times" here is president obama and speaker boehner. never let it be said that president obama has failed to spend time with the begin leaders in seeking an alternative to budget cuts that will hit most federal departments on friday. on wednesday, -- a politico this morning, another story. bob called a senior white house official. he was going to question barack obama -- host: that is invalid to go to. here is the "new york times" story the -- host: tennessean, republican line. you are first up. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is nonsense, when you think about it. president obama has been in office for the last 4.5 years. $85 billion is nothing if you continue to let him spend. we will be up to a trillion dollars before you know it. he remind me of a husband and wife to get a credit card. the husband says, we have a $5,000 limit. don't spend it all in one place. she goes out and three days later it is. she says i need to buy this new address or by that. he says to her, you know, give me that credit card. you don't know how to manage money. that is the problem i have with president obama. we have the wrong man in office to solve our problem. about of the third of the country are unemployed because we don't have the money to pay our bills. thank you. host: danny, you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. everybody needs to keep this in perspective. this sequester and the fiscal cliff and all these crises are part of a comprehensive attack that republicans want to destroy the entitlement programs. they have been trying to starve the beast. they want to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps. if you listen to all of them, they think it is time to pull the trigger and get rid of all those programs. they have hated them since fdr created them in the first place. he has meetings every week with the republicans to discuss this larger strategy of destroying entitlement programs. everybody needs to be aware of that. republicans are going to find out that when social security gets cut, if they are not getting a check, their mom or their cousin or their neighbor is or customers of their business. it is going to absolutely destroy the economy. people need to be aware that. it is coming at us and we better be ready. host: thank you. our facebook page says -- host: if you would like to continue the conversation on our facebook page, go to our facebook page. what do you think about the sequester taking effect tomorrow? caller: good morning. thank you for thinking my call. i am amazed. here we go. we have another ground zero emergency again. it amazes me that we have this major -- it was unavoidable. they wait until -- it is going to be a meeting tomorrow. friday, it is supposed to happen. i voted for obama. i voted for obama again. the first time, i am thinking congress is giving him a fit. they are giving him a fit again. these are like to stubborn side. to hear speeches of finger- pointing, is amazing. they're going to take a break. they're going to have a nice weekend, some were very nice. the average taxpayer is going to bite their nails wondering about their jobs and how it is going to affect them. yet, they have enough money somewhere else they can afford to take a break. we even let them to work for us. instead, they are just toying with us. it is frustrating. host: that was maryland on our independent line. some tweets on this issue -- how does obama get away with blaming everyone else for his actions? he has made accusations that are just not true. i never pegged him for a conservative, but his credibility is gone. i just can't believe the gop. they're just so childish. it is 2.4% of the budget. it is not the end of the world, says ohio republican representative jim jordan. obama is not a leader, he is a cheerleader. who is the idiot that decided congress only works every other week? it will destroy them politically in the november 2016 elections. here is the front page of the "washington journal" -- david, you are the washington journal. caller: i was summing through my world almanac. i have been subscribing to this forever. it is a good source. anyway, in this book there is a federal labor relations authority. there is a national labor relations board, which i don't know if there is a dime difference. i bet you there is consolidation there. one more thing, i was surprised to see -- i would have thought defense is the biggest budget. it is not. it is just under 700 dollars billion -- $700 billion i see it as a spending problem. it is a -- the only way to give a start and everybody to take a position and negotiate from there, let it be that. host: wall street journal, carl rove -- host: the federal budget is now -- host: that is the bill that the senate will be voting on today. host: that is from the hill newspaper. donna is from minnesota, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for your programming. i appreciate it. i have been paying attention for the past few weeks. i appreciate everything you are doing for us. my biggest concern is that we have a legislative branch and this congress is supposed to be taking care of us. we have voted for them. they are not doing their job. they are arguing and bickering over every little penny. i am concerned about americans because it is dividing our country greatly. everyone is a blaming president obama. people are not coming together. i feel we have to come together as citizens of the united states of america and lay aside our party differences. we are going to need each other in the coming days. there is going to be hard times for everyone. i am really very, very frustrated with what our congress is doing. there is gun control -- there is all these things going on but no one is thinking about the senior citizens that may not have meals come to their home. the people in nursing homes that -- there may not be money for them. i don't understand how social security and medicare became entitlements. they are not entitlements. my mother has worked her whole life. she needs that money. she paid into the system. is not an entitlement. there is no budget. i just feel we have to somehow vote for the correct people that are going to do something and be a voice for us. host: donna in minnesota. a new poll just released this morning. a majority of the united states state sequestration will harm the economy. the top number here, guest: sarah, went nowhere. caller: good morning. for heaven's sake, i never dreamed it would be cutting for things that are so important like defense, like education. we talked about the pain that is going to come to a lot of citizens in our country. where is the pain for the members of congress? where is the pain for ex- presidents? where is the pain for president obama who is going to be an ex- president in three years? the ex-presidents get a fortune. bill clinton was on tv not too long ago. he is worth about $220 million. he does not need our money. members of congress, they could pay half of their -- or even more than half of their medical insurance. they could pay for their staff from what they get. it is just not right. i am a publican, a former democrat, a former -- an independent. i am where i should be. i want less government. i want limited government. they are talking about taking money away from important things. by the way, can't david -- camp david shaw -- camp david should be gotten rid of. host: key housesitter -- conservatives say they can support measure to fund the government. host: that is a little bit about the budget process which we will be hearing about a lot more in the coming weeks as march 2 seven it's closer. an article in the wall street journal this morning, texas pardon -- tax stand -- tax stances harden. host: the next call comes from bradley. and independent. the sequester take effect tomorrow. caller: i just wanted to call in to point out that in the documentary, he saw this happening. he knew this was going to happen. he said there were going to be cuts in the defense. i do believe this country needs to make major cuts. at a time when north korea -- they are testing missiles that could hold nuclear warheads, this is not the right thing to be doing. in the movie 2016, the vice president's -- the vice president was written off as being borderline insane. most things were going along with what is going on in this country. it needs to be given the credit it deserves. that is all. host: joe says it is sad when a presidential administration needs to intimidate a journalist. it is not surprising. they are failed communists. gop does not want blame. no leadership. read the constitution. host: in the usa today -- host: san diego, republican. good morning. caller: when the rebel against -- they want to pick it -- and choose what could be cut. obviously, he does not want that kind of flexibility. he does not want to make any decision when it comes to cutting anything. the funny thing to me is, he keeps talking about taxing the rich and getting more revenues that way. are there any left in this country? i am surprised anybody has any money anymore. this whole thing about the sequester is a big joke. no one is going to notice it. that is what he is afraid of. he keeps talking about how it is going to be a drain on the economy. one month from now, it is going to be the second quarter. we going to have negative growth. he wants to be able to blame the republicans for the recession that his company -- coming. i hope in march when without about the budget for next year, but the republicans stand firm and play hardball with him until he loses again. host: op ed this morning, regular communal -- columnist for the newspaper -- host: alexandria, virginia. democrat. what do you think about the sequester taking effect morrow -- tomorrow? caller: good morning. we are being jilted as gershwin wrote. it is breaking the baseline of -- when you say jobs, it should have been taking defense -- putting those people to work and fixing the roads and the levees. we spend more than anybody else in the world together. while the banks and wall street are flourishing at just the basic parts of healthcare and the teachers who is that -- been spending hundreds of dollars a year over the years for basic stuff for pencils and paper. it is not taxes and not jobs. it is fluctuating in his 20/20 vision of the have and have- nots. it should be a worldwide -- i wish it would be a universal law. an international court, that every country going gold -- dwindled 90%. we are not attacking israel's 70 or 80 nuclear weapons and ir an's problem. that seems to dominate the journalism aspect of things. host: thank you. more tweets. this is steve. host: dan and pennsylvania, independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: i've you the sequester as a joke. these spending cuts, they don't need to be the way they are. we have a conservative party, the democrats and an extreme conservative party which is the republicans. i would like to see a liberal they say why don't we cut department of home security, bring our soldiers home from germany and across europe. make big spending cuts, get rid of corporate -- keep medicare and social security. the president is saying that medicare and social security cuts are on the table. they are arguing about raising taxes by two percent or leave them the way they are. taxes under eisenhower were 90%. this is ridiculous speaking of progressive taxes and spending cuts that would not affect social security and medicare when we don't need it. host: from the washington times, kevin brady. obama cries robbery. host: that is a little bit of the kevin brady from the "washington times. caller: obama is going around and -- if the sequester goes through, he says the sky is going to fall. the greatest fear the democrats have is if the sequester goes through that nothing will happen. then the iraqi people will say, well, -- then the american people said the sky is going to fall and nothing happened, well how about we cut more. he just wants to spend the money. that is all. that is all i have to say. you have a good day. host: thank you for calling and this morning. ann arbor, michigan -- democrat. caller: good morning. your name is peter? host: yes, ma'am. caller: there was a lady that called in pertaining to the pain for president clinton, where is the pain for president obama now. i would like to say where is the pain for president bush? where is the pain for dick cheney? i feel that everyone -- the ones that call in -- they are against president obama. he is trying to do the best he can. i am against the sequester. i don't believe there's going to be one. i really don't. i really don't. the the republicans are going to cave in before march 1, which is tomorrow. host: that is an arbor michigan, a first time caller. the president spoke to business leaders last night in washington dc. here is a little bit of what he thought about with regard to the sequester. [video clip]>> this is going to be a big hit on the economy, both private sector as well as public sector. economists are as to meeting we could lose as much as .6% of a point, maybe more of economic growth. that means inevitably hundreds of thousands of people were not going to get jobs who otherwise would get them. it means that you have fewer customers with money in their pockets ready to buy your goods and services. it means that the global economy will be weaker because although we have a long way to go in recovery, we are doing smith to play better than other developed nations. the worst part of it is it is entirely unnecessary. it is not what we should be doing. host: from the "national journal" -- host: in other news, this is from "news day" -- host: the hill newspaper reports this morning that the white house says it did not approve release of illegal immigrants. the white house on wednesday said it did not prove the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants. host: kevin is in windsor, connecticut. what are your thoughts? caller: once again, the middle class gets beat in that. they don't want to give in on tax loopholes. it is all about elections. they threw christie right underneath the bus. he was doing his job, what he got elected to do. republicans should take lessons on what the governor is doing in new jersey. they still don't get it. that is all i have to say. host: from "politico" -- host: the lead story this morning in the "new york times" is about a court case. host: joe in tulsa, republican line. what are your thoughts about the sequester taking effect morrow? -- tomorrow? caller: does the country have more money to spend after the sequester that he had last year ? the answer is, it does have more money scheduled to be spent after sequester. $15 billion according to what phil gramm said this morning, the whole language is turned upside down. people are not asking the question, is government spending going down after the sequester compared to the previous years. for a family to say, ok, i am planning to spend 10,000 more dollars this year than last year but i don't have that much income so i'm only going to spend $2000 more than last year, that is a cut in the which that is currently being used. people need to ask that question. there should be no panic because they are actually having more money to spend. host: that is joe in tulsa. the "washington post" -- host: again, that is in the "washington post" this morning. coming up, the conversation on the sequester continues. we will get two different viewpoints. first, matt salmon. after that, adam smith. he is the ranking member, top democrat on the armed services committee in the house. first, i want to show you this front page in "usa today" -- this is the rosa parks statue unveiled. you can see the president down here. here is a few of the president's remarks regarding rosa parks. [video clip]>> this is how change happens, not only from the exports of the famous and the powerful but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually expand our conception of justice. our conception of what is possible. singular act of disobedience launched a movement. the tired feet of those who walked the dusty roads of montgomery held a nation see that to which it had once been blind. it is because these men and women that i stand here today. it is because of them that our children grow up in a land who are free and more fair. a land truer to its founding creed. that is why this statue belongs in this hall, to remind us that matter how humble or lofty our positions, just what it is that leadership requires. just what it is that citizenship requires. rosa parks would've turned 100 years this month. we do well by placing a statue of her here. but, we can do no greater honor to her memory then to carry forward the power of her principal -- principle and encourage one of conviction. [applause]now joining us on the washington journal is a matt salmon, or public in arizona. he served three terms previously. it has been 12 years since you have been here. guest: it is been a while. a lot of changes and a lot have stayed the same. i was in congress before we had a divided government. i left during the tenure of bill clinton. bill clinton was elected in 1992. i was elected in 1994. i served from that 94 to -- 1994 to 2000. this president is less to reach across the aisle than president clinton. during the term of clinton and when i was in congress, we balanced the budget the first time in 40 years. we balance it three years in a row. when i left, we had a surplus. we also passed my mental welfare reform. reducing the welfare ranks in this country by over 50%. that was done with a democrat president. we also passed the defense of marriage act. host: a lot of differences. president clinton seemed more willing to work for the benefit of the market people in a far less partisan way. host: that was a lot different time. newt gingrich would speak and many of those years. a shutdown happened during that time. is republican leadership different today? guest: i think the were broken leadership -- the republican leadership is very similar to what it was when i was in congress before. one of the reasons we were able to get to a balanced budget was of the government shutdown because americans saw over the three weeks that the government was shut down that they did not -- not miss much of anything. they also realize that maybe we could tighten our belts. maybe we could balance the budget. president clinton took the majority a lot serious after that. it led to a balanced budget in 1997. host: the sequester is due to take effect tomorrow. what are your thoughts? guest: rather than engaging the blame game of who is responsible for the sequester, i think we need to talk about where we go from here. we are going to pass a continuing resolution, probably within the next week or so, to provide flexibility to all levels of government so they can manage through this process and it does not have to be an across-the-board cut of "" -- x percent. the overpayment on food stamps into the billions and billions of dollars. we believe these are wasteful and hurtful and they can be cut. we give the agency's be kind of authority they need to go in and manage this crisis. i would like to say this, and our own state, arizona, in 2008, governor brewer inherited a situation from the prior governor. the brunch -- the budget was in a deficit. host: governor napolitano? guest: because of economic situations, the buzz it -- the budget was in economic disarray. let me tell you, in real dollars, five years ago, the arizona budget was north of $11 billion. this year, the budget is right around $8 billion. me be a little more. substantial cuts. far more than we are talking about here. there was not blood in the streets. we were able to manage through that. all the governors across the country had to. many had balanced budget requirements built into their constitutions. and washington, that is not the case. the real spending here in this country in the last four years has gone up after being adjusted for inflation over 800 dollars per person over the last four years. that is how much spending has gone up. i would like to ask the americans out there, if you're a family of four, do you feel like you're getting 3200 dollars more as a family than you were four years ago in this country? do you feel better off? most would say, no way. spending is out of control. it is going to hurt. i used to state future generations, but it -- it is going to hurt the current generation. we are on a path to financial disaster if we don't at the bull by the horns right now. we trying very, very hard to drive this president in a direction that is responsible to spend as we go and not spend more than we take in and start paying down this mammoth president -- the senate, it is 1401 days as the senate has passed a budget. that is irresponsible. we have to hold their feet to the fire to make sure we get on track again. all we're doing by staying on this trajectory is we're stalling the inevitable. it is going to be more painful than we are talking about now, so much more if we don't take the bull by the horns right now and get our financial house in order. maybe as soon as four or five years from now if we continue, it could be cataclysmic cuts. it can be replicated in this country. we have got to do things now. right now, this sequester at the end of the day between now and september -- you have the number $85 billion. it's actually only $44 billion. it is because of the prorated amount of what is left from now until september. projected out, i would also like to say that right now, we are spending about 22% of gdp. if the sequester goes through for the entire decade, which is what the grand bargain in tailed, if it goes through for the entire 10 years, -- right now, we're spending 22% of gdp. we will be spending 23% even with this -- the sequester going into play. host: is it a strategy to say the sequester is all right? guest: it is not the best way to manage a process. i do believe, pay me now or pay me a lot more later. i would rather take the bull by the horns right now. if this is the only way to try to get some cuts, then i say we ought -- we have to do what we have today. no, it is not the best way to manage. i think we could go in and target cuts. i think the best way to manage would be to actually bring the 800 pound gorilla into the room and do something as possible of. both of those programs -- the major programs, the third rail programs we talked about, medicare and social security -- especially medicare are on the path to disaster. we are going to leave a lot of people holding an empty bag in a few years if we don't a double by the horns right now. i think the most results looking for us to do is to get into some serious so the most responsible thing to do is to get into entitlement reform because we could erase all discretionary spending and still have a deficit of close to half of $1 trillion. host: in the arizona -- "arizona republic" -- "cuts will hurt arizona schools." guest: i am one to believe we should not be spending -- sending tax dollars to washington for education in the first place here that i have far more trust -- place. i have far more trust in local school boards to make the decisions for how their children and constituents' children are going to be educated and having a one-size- fits-all approach coming out of the department of education. show me where in the constitution it gives the federal government the purview of regulating education policy in this country. host: matt salmon is our guest. the first call comes from his district. arizona. michael. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman salmon, if the sequestration is supposed to be so tough, 2%, or 3%, i guess homeland security is saying we should start early because we had 300 he legal immigrants released -- illegal immigrants released here in arizona. earlier i saw a resignation over that immigrant release, and that washington had nothing to do with that release. who is running washington? is it janet napolitano's fault that the 300 were released? guest: that is a great question. whether it is dealing with fast and furious, or libya, president obama is always trying to pass -- blame somebody else. when he first took office, on the fiscal issues it was blame president bush. within his own administration he does not take ownership of anything. somebody in his administration and we have to suspect that was the secretary of homeland security, janet a. napolitano, must have directed the release, the only thing i could think of is he is trying to to get an early head start on his amnesty proposal or he is trying to play games with this sequestration to try to send a message that we cannot even cut a dime here in washington, dc. i am sick and tired of the spin coming out of this gentleman. i wish that he would lead. could you imagine president reagan having to deal with cuts would have gone through and actually made cuts to major programs that hurt people's lives? this is unconscionable and it does not have to happen. host: tyrone in mcallister, oklahoma. democrats line. caller: i am in a small town. we have an army base, and i listen to this and people say there is nothing to the sequester, but we have an ammunition plant out here, and i know they have temporary help and part-time help, and they are laying them off. my son has been working there for years, and he is fixing to get 22 days off, for load -- for low -- for load. i know people are getting take- home pay that is less. host: tyrone, would you like to see the sequester issue solved and how? caller: what i would like to see is the bickering stop. everybody quit blaming everybody. what it will take is they have to pass something and send it to the president. if he vetoes it, blame him. guest: last year, the house passed to measures to avert sequestration, two targeted plans that would go in and make cuts in a strategic way and avoid these kinds of issues that you brought up. i do not believe that the sequestration is not a big deal. it is a important issue and something we have to focus our attention on, however both of those bills passed last year passed by the house were stuck in the drawer by senator harry reid. america needs to focus on harry reid and ask him why it has been 1400 days since the senate has passed a budget. they are not doing their job. why he is not allowing responsible legislation for all boarding -- averting these problems -- harry reid is a problem, and i have to believe he and the president are in cahoots. host: this tweet. representative matt salmon is an anarchist, a reactionary, advocating shutdown of government. it is his job to govern, not shut it down. guest: i believe i am a realist, trying do everything we can to avoid major financial disaster that will hurt every family and taxpayer in america in the not so distant future if we do not get our fiscal house in order. last year, out of every dollar we spend, $.43 was borrowed money. we are borrowing $4 billion a day. $4 billion a day. can your family sustained on that kind of spending pattern? any hospital, church, business, any entity that can spend so recklessly and borrow their way out of these problems can avoid financial disaster? the american government cannot either. if it is being an anarchist to get our financial patterns under control in spending as we go, i would take umbrage with the gentleman on what the definition of an anarchist is. host: jamie tweeps in, if the sequester goes through and the economy is damaged, we can blame obama for that. obsesses -- obsessed are compel her tweets in the sequester is manufactured by congress, congress can and should repeal it. guest: i think the blame game is useless, but bob woodward, who is probably not a republican, has called obama out, saying he owns the sequester. it generates -- it was his hammer. the grand bargain the supercommittee was supposed to come up with never the carrier last. so, the sequester that obama demanded in the congress passed through came into effect. now he is having buyers remorse. mr. president, you do not like it, lead. come up with alternatives. maybe, finally, as a responsible adult, deal with the entitlement issue so that we do not have a crisis when you leave office. maybe it will not happen until you leave office, mr. president , but it will happen in history will remember you were the president that drove us to that. host: "the hill" newspaper reported about a gop house meeting talking about the budget coming up in mid rise -- mid- march. what are your thoughts about that and when can we expect to see the budget process on the floor? guest: the budget process is starting to unfold as we speak. the budget committee is working hard on it. i have been in meetings with paul ryan and he has delineated that we will be passing a 10- year balanced-budget and it will impose the sequester numbers, $85 billion this year, and we are hopeful that the senate will finally, after four years, do their job and pass a budget as well and we can get on with the process as we should. i believe that budget will, i'll -- come out sometime in the next few weeks, the next two or three weeks. it will be a budget that balances within 10 years, which i think is incredibly as possible. i would like to -- responsible. i would like to see it faster, but 10 years is a good start. host: the head of the progressive caucus was quoted in "the new york times" saying the sequester is good in the sense that defense will be cut. guest: that is his perspective, but if we give the department of defense the tools and the ability to cut programs they do not see value in -- the other thing is i think the dod or. process needs a complete -- dod procurement process needs a complete looking at. there is a little bit of the good old boy syndrome that still exists. i would like to see positive changes. i am concerned about defense cuts probably more so than anything we are looking at right now and defense takes a disproportionate share of those cuts. most agencies are right around 8%, and defense is that 13%. i would like to give them the tools at the pentagon to manage through this and make sure that readiness does not suffer. host: we are talking with representative matt salmon, republican from arizona. larry, rutledge, georgia, you are on the air. independent line. caller: i think they should get bob woodward and a are -- ar-16. the marsupial press cannot seem to get the president back in their pouch. maybe we could cut the program for the cloning of joe biden because we do not need stupid and stereo. thank you, sir. host: that was larry in georgia. this is the white house's take on the sequester in arizona -- $18 million lost in primary and secondary education. guest: i think if the president spent even one-third more time leading, we would probably be able to do the job that needs to be done as far as targeting specific cuts like four point $5 billion on him proper food stamp payments, or an unused airport and -- in oklahoma, $340,000 for robust squirrels. i could go on and on about the ridiculous spending. if the president would work with us and talk to harry reid in the senate and say get a budget passed and do your job like the american people are paying you to do, and work with the republicans. stop sticking these bills in your drawer. anytime the republican house passes something to avert the sequester crisis in east take it in your drawer, you are part of the problem, not the solution. host: this tweet. the republicans passed it we will build, but they were one- sided. work with the senate and pass something that will pass? guest: why did the senate not take our bill and amend them? they did not let them see the light of day. there is a process where if they do not like what they see, they can take the bills to committee , mark them up, amend them, and send them back to us. that would be the responsible thing, but senator harry reid would not even do that. host: the next call for congressman salmon comes from lee and thomasville, georgia -- in thomasville, georgia. caller: good morning, peter. thank you for taking my call. matt salmon, have you ever heard of the treasury department debt to the penny chart that they run deadly -- daily? they keep a daily report that goes back to 1993, and if you follow it all the way through, we have been going in debt every year, and january 4, 2007, when the democrats took control of the house and the senate, our national debt was $8 trillion and some change. all of that is change to anyone in washington, dc, anymore. we should have someone in this country to investigate that and make sure their figures are right, and any time people lie to you and say we have a balanced budget, kick them off the air. guest: i appreciate your comments. you are very astute. the debt has doubled in the last few years since nancy pelosi and harry reid were in charge. it is unconscionable. right now, we are spending our way and borrowing our way into oblivion, and what happens when our creditors, those that are loaning america all of this debt, what happens when they call their notes and say they are not going to loan any more money? i guess we could go to the treasury department and say go ahead and print more money. then what happens? we have hyperinflation and a loaf of bread goes up to $10 a loaf. how responsible is it to keep aching the can down the road? i do not believe it is. i did not come back here to the part of the same, old problem. i came back here to make major change. i had my fifth grandchild. number six will be here in april. how morally responsible is it for us to keep our owing and borrowing -- borrowing and borrowing? every american owes over $50,000 if we were to pay off the debt. what will it be five years from now? can america, any organization, sustain that kind of borrowing, lending -- spending and government growth? host: sabrina tweets in, if congress spent even one thirds the time spending vacations, -- taking vacate this -- vacations, i think all of this would be done. guest: my schedule is six days a week, about 14 hours a day, and i hardly ever see my wife anymore. the fact is i am working very hard and i take offense to the notion that they are buying into the spin coming out of this place. we are not going on vacation. we are working very, very hard. host: do you think the house and the senate should be in session more than they are? guest: yes, i do. part of a congressman's responsibility is to meet with their constituents, so when they say we are on vacation, we are back in the district, meeting with constituents about their own personal issues, with the social security administration, the veterans administration, adoption, immigration -- whatever problems they might be having. we have two jobs. one is here to vote, and the other is to be their personal advocate with the government when the government is not so nice to them. do i believe right now we should be in session more? i do. i believe we should be doing everything we possibly can to cut spending and get on the pathway to financial responsibility because every american is counting on us doing our job and every american will be hurt if we are not successful. host: m, wyoming, michigan, democrat. you are the last caller for representative salmon. caller: please cope with me. i am a nervous first-time caller. i want to ask representative salmon, is that the parent a leader in the family? host: where are you going in this? caller: we are willing to cut everybody's expenses but our own. i have worked 30 years, and i do not have a pension. they worked 12 years, they have a pension, insurance and anything they want. i have to cut my own first. start to be a leader, lead by example. all of these people just talk and talk over and over and nothing is done. i will take one shot for this country. i will do this first for this country. i love this country. this is my adopted mother. all i hear is everyone say how much they love the country, but nobody puts anything toward the country. guest: i think the gentleman has a point. congress needs to lead by example. we need to leave by example and look at our pension systems and bring them more in line with where america is right now, and move them away from the current pension system to a more defined benefit program like a 401(k). for all federal workers, so they have to live like every other american has to live. i also support the no budget, no pay. i also would go one step further and i believe if we cannot pass a balanced budget members of congress should have their pay cut by 20%. the stock act, i think no member of congress should be able to enrich themselves based on the job they have because of inside information we get on certain projects. the stock act that was passed last year was a joke. at the end of the day we should make it so no member of congress can buy and trade stocks, that they should only do it through a blind trust and not be able to enrich themselves. there are all whole other host of reforms we should do leading by example, so the gentleman has a point. let's lead by example. americans have had to cut and do more with less. we should cut him do more with less in the congress and the federal government. host: representative matt salmon is in his first return term after serving three terms earlier. thank you for being on "washington journal." opnext, representative adam smith, democrat of washington will talk about this as well after this news update. ask the obama administration will provide the syrian opposition with additional assistance and nonlethal aid but food and medical supplies. secretary of state john kerry announced these developments today at an international conference on syria that is taking place in rome. there are important economic indicators due out this morning. the labor department will release weekly jobless claims. the commerce department reports on the gross domestic product and freddie mac will release weekly mortgage rates. the senate has confirmed jack lew to be treasury secretary, replacing timothy geithner. he had most recently served as president obama's chief of staff and white house budget director. first lady michelle obama is trying to get schools to come up with more creative ways to motivate schools to exercise. she will be in chicago to announce the latest part of her campaign known as let's move where came -- teachers will encourage exercise into blessing -- lesson plans like memorizing multiplication tables while doing jumping jacks. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think eisenhower handled crisis so well. he was a very decisive man. people think of him as a grandfatherly, pleasant man with a winning smile and the rest, but behind that smile were some very i see -- icy blue eyes, and he made decisions that do not have the liability that some decisions have when they are made emotionally. he never made an emotional decision. he was an emotional man but never allowed his emotions to control him when big decisions had to be made. >> richard nixon reflects on his vice presidency with dwight eisenhower part of "oral histories" on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to have with us adam smith, democrat of washington. give us your general thoughts on where we stand one day before the sequester takes effect? guest: we are not in a good place. it will kick in tomorrow, and we will spend march figuring out where to go from here. it is a significant challenge. there is no way to plan for it and efficiently govern. we need to get the deficit out of control -- under control, but this is far from the best way to do it here at it will impact -- do it. it will have an impact on education,, housing and national defense. the pentagon has to scramble. it will be a big challenge. we will come back in the next couple of weeks and have longer number stations about how to get a more sensible plan in place that gets our deficit under control. host: what will happen in your district? do you seek immediate effect? guest: it is really playing out over series of months. there are furlough announcements that have gone out, but it is over the course of the next couple of months that those will begin to kick in. nobody is really sure what will happen. there will be a furor -- fewer employees in the department of defense, and tsa. there will be cuts and they will have an impact. host: "the wall street journal" has been running editorials on this issue, and a couple of days ago "the un-scary sequester" was the headline. yesterday they said even with the sequester we will spend more money this year than we did last year. guest: that is not true. we will be spending more money in the federal government, there is a difference between the discretionary portion of the budget and the mandatory portion. mandatory is social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance. that he continues to go up significantly as healthcare accelerate, as more people retire. that clearly goes up. the discretionary portion of the budget, defense will spend a lot less money than they did last year. that portion of the budget, which is about 38%, is going to be caught and will go down and that is what the sequester applies to. host: in the senate, the senate is voting on a republican plan to give the president more flexibility in how to cut this money. what you think about that plan? guest: the plan is to keep the sequester number in how much has to be cut, but give the administration flexibility on where to cut. you have to cut close to everything by the same amount. there is a little bit of flexibility. that is certainly better than doing it across-the-board in a, sort of, mindless way that has been set up. my concern is the discretionary portion of the budget is bearing the entire burden. i listened a little bit to representative salmon, who came before and he talked about getting this -- spending under control, and that is part of it , but the mandatory part is what we need to find savings. we have cut taxes in the last 15 years by roughly $7 trillion and/or revenue is less than 15% of gdp. when we were running a surplus, it was 21% of gdp. we have cut every conceivable tax in the last 15 years and that has hurt us on the revenue side. i admit spending has gone up dramatically and we to get that under control, but we cannot get responsibility fiscally without more revenue. host: you talked about getting mandatory reforms. guest: cutting it. host: does that include social security and medicare? guest: it certainly includes medicare. social security is a dedicated fund. there are ways to deal with social security without having to make reductions in the program. it is roughly 12% of the budget. it is relatively small. it is really the healthcare portion of spending that is going up dramatically, medicare , medicaid, health care -- that is the portion of mandatory spending that is going up and where cost need to be brought under control. host: when it comes to military spending, what concerns you the most and when will we those potential cuts? guest: first of all, we could save money in the defense budget. as part of the president's plan two years ago, they cut 487 billion dollars from the defense budget over the course of 10 years. they cut the amount of money we expected to spend. we are still spending more money, so when they say it is a 487 alien dollar cut, that is a cut from what we were projected to spend. that still has an impact. i still think we can get more than $487 billion. i introduced a bill that would have cut defense by another hundred $67 billion. at one of the biggest impacts of sequester is the military calls readiness, a sickly training. -- basically training. a lot of the money is spent to train our troops to do the missions we have told them that they need to be ready to do. sometimes they happen, sometimes they do not. if you say that dod needs to be ready if north korea launches a war against south korea, we cannot just wake up and say go figure it out. we have to train for it, which means flying hours, the cost of having ships in training missions, ammunition. a lot of that is cut to deal with the sequester because there is less flying hours, less time to train, which means our troops will be less ready to perform these missions if they are asked to go do them. that has a significant impact on national security. host: bob woodward of "the washington post" is getting a lot of attention for interactions with the white house but on wednesday he was " talkings "morning joe about the use of an aircraft carrier to make a point. [video clip]>> can you imagine ronald reagan saying i cannot do this because of a budget document or george w. bush saying i cannot invade iraq because i cannot get the aircraft carriers i need, or even bill clinton saying i am not going to attack saddam hussein's intelligence headquarters because of some budget document under the constitution? the president is commander-in- chief and employs the force. we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement -- i cannot do what i need to do to protect the country? that is kind of a madness that i have not seen in a long time. host: representative smith? guest: i guess bob woodward has a different understanding of how money works and the rest of us. if you do not have the money, you have to adjust. that is a nice sentiment that ronald reagan would have had money appear out of thin air and pay for things, but to send out an aircraft carrier cost a certain amount of money. as part of the strategy of here are the resources we have available and what we should do, the commander-in-chief has to make decisions about where to send -- spend the money. some of the money is able to be spent on the training that i mentioned so that the next group of troops that we send to afghanistan are ready to do what we are sending them to do and by ready i am talking about lives here. if you are not properly trained, used to the equipment, used to working together, people die. saving money by not sending an aircraft carrier is a prudent choice. i found what bob woodward said to be in say. it is not a piece of paper. it is $45 billion you have to find. it is money. these are choices they need to be made. it is symptomatic of a larger problem as we try to confront the budget. everybody wants to confront the deficit, but say we do not have to cut fat or raise that tax. we do. there are going to be consequences. i am ok with that. i do not think we should spend $1 trillion less. we should have a glidepath toward a reduced budget, a whatever you do it will have a real impact on a variety of programs. acknowledge that and victor choice. do not wish it away and say if we have a strong leader we would imaginary -- heaven imaginary aircraft carrier. that is not the way the world works. host: representative adam smith , top ranking member of the armed services committee, currently in his ninth term in congress representing the area around seattle, washington, where he served as a prosecutor at one point in his career. your turn to talk with representative smith. charles, national, public in line. -- nashville, republican line. caller: what bob woodward said was easy. all those other presidents did was raid social security. i have heard both sides mentioned the elephant in the room. to me the elephant in the room is tax breaks given to places like bank of america who take all their money to the cayman islands. i have listened to c-span for the last 20 years, and i have gathered that you have taken 2% of my money, but my gasoline is $3.60 a gallon. it cannot go up more. take some money from them. bank of america did not pay anything in texas. we're giving them $1.9 billion of our money. you will raid the social security trust fund again, i will pay it back again, and you will not fix anything. that is not a blemish for the republicans or the democrats. stopped selling out america. guest: revenue has to be part of the equation and corporate taxes are part of the problem. a lot of corporations complained about having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, but they never mention what the effective rate is, how much we actually collect after all the deductions and write-offs and ways to hide income. we collect 12%, which is the second lowest rate in the developed world, so closing those loopholes and getting a more sensible corporate tax structure, but a tax structure that raises more money -- that is part that people skip. we need a tax system that works where people pay their fair share. host: the house made hr one, tax reform. have you heard anything about tax reform? guest: we are having that conversation, but i want to emphasize that when you talk about tax reform, that makes it sound better. people imagine that that means their taxes are going down. the democrats have been focused on tax cuts that have gone to people at the top, 1%, 2%. 80% of bush's tax cuts went to people making less than $250,000. a lot of those write-offs that we like to deride those to us. education tax credits, per child tax credits, the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty much merck a lot of those tax cuts into a wide swath of americans. -- penalties -- a lot of those tax cuts went to a wide swath of americans. we are all kind of in this pool together, and at the end of the day, facing a $1 trillion a year deficit, it's tax reform does not raise more revenue, if the end result is not that some group of people is paying more in taxes than it is not really going to be helpful in terms of the deficit. we could have a more sensible tax code, but it had better bring in more money if we are going to realistically deal with our deficit. host: the next call comes from christie and hope, michigan -- in hope, michigan, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm going to give my opinion on something. or our three kinds of lies. there is a lie, but damn lie, and then there is statistics. this sequester is going to absolutely hurt the people of the united states, and i am talking about the people that actually pay taxes. it will not hurt the people who have taken their money and put it overseas in their banks. those people are not citizens of the united states. they are traitors. the traitors of this country are also the people from wall street who were never made to pay for what they did to this country. if we could have that money back and have those people that are putting their money in banks overseas -- they are not citizens of this country, and mr. smith, i would like to see why for your -- thank you for your courage and representation of our countries protection, which is what you are doing. those people who are putting money overseas are not citizens. host: we got the point, risky. let's get a response from representative smith. guest: the big point she made is that this will have an impact on people. you have seen a lot of stories that it will not make a difference. it is cutting $88 million out of the budget over the course of the next seven months. people will be laid off. government services will be more slowly delivered. it will have that impact. while i freely admit we have to get the deficit under control, this is a very poor way to do it and the discretionary budget has already been cut. it will impact national security and a lot of other areas. there is a smarter way to budget and i hope we come together and make a more comprehensive decision that includes revenue, reductions in mandatory spending, getting this on a path to better physical health. host: bill tweeps in, i have a feeling president obama and his host of leaders will cut vital services to cut -- make a political point. guest: i do not agree with that. vital services run on money. if you have less money, you have to make those choices. they are trying to make the best choices that they can, but if you have to cut $88 billion out of a budget decision that includes revenue, reductions in mandatory spending, getting this on a path to better physical health. host: bill, it will have an impact on people. we will try to minimize the impact as much as possible, and certainly the government can run more efficiently, but at this point you will have an impact on what is available to people had host: represented smith -- people. host: represented smith, you have been here for 16 years here and how have things -- he here. how have things changed? guest: what has changed is we are under significantly more budget pressure for a variety of different reasons. when i first was running for congress, the deficit was a big issue. it seems quaint now when you think about what it was in the early 1990's, but we came in and had a balanced budget. for four years, we had a surplus. then we decided we would give it away. we had tax cuts, spending increases, 9/11 happened, we had to respond, 2008 happen, we had to respond, and we dug ourselves a financial hole. that means we cannot keep doing what people have gotten accustomed to us doing. it is difficult to take those things back. the paralysis we have is faith country, not the congress -- is as a country, not the congress. there is a consensus that we are spending too much money. if you ask the question, the answer is yes, we are spending too much and we should reduce it, but when they are asked here are the areas that we should cut, keep the same or increase. in no area was there a plurality of people for cutting. except for foreign aid, which was basically 50/50, and every single area, two thirds or more of the people said keep it the same or increase it. we are concerned about government spending, but we just do not want to cut it from anywhere. that is what we as politicians have an obligation to have an honest discussion. we have to talk about the programs we need to be deuce. yes, we will get more efficient -- reduce. yes, we will get more efficient, but there is no way to wipe out a $1 trillion deficit with efficiency. you will have to raise taxes. part of the reason i am in favor of raising taxes is i am not in favor of making the dramatic cuts in programs that would be necessary like medicare and defense if you do not raise taxes and it would be disingenuous to pound the table about how we are cutting and then not raise the revenue. the deficit is terrible, but we cannot raise taxes. we have to move past that. we have to make the tough choices necessary to deal with the budget and -- budget. host: donna, texas. caller: representative smith, how can you as a member of congress talk about cuts to social security and medicare? that's cut congress. let's cut their pay. you are exempt from health care. what is that about? guest: we are not exempt from the health-care law. i am on the federal employee health care plan, and i pay about $600 a month for the health-care coverage that i get, and congress is not only not exempt, we are the one and only group of employees that are mandated to move to the exchanges once we get to 2014. look, i do not have a problem with cutting congress. our budget is part of sequestration. my budget, my office is cut by $180,000 a year as a result of the. congress is 535 people and they will take their lumps. you will not get back there fiscal -- to fiscal responsibility, to saving over $1 trillion a year, by just cutting congress. i am all for it, but collectively as a nation we need to take responsibility and make choices about what taxes we want to go up, and what programs we want to cut. i do not support cutting social security, by the way, but those are choices we are going to have to make. to say we're going to cut back all congress, we all have to participate in the conversation. host: tiger modern tweets and. woodward's point is that it is not just a budget document, but that the administration chooses benching a cvn rather than making wiser cuts. guest: what would the wiser cuts be? tell us what it is. just to say there was a smarter way to do that and not know makes it clear that you do not know whether there was a smarter way to do it. it is quite possible there was, but i'm a little familiar with a way the defense budget works, and there are tough choices all over. the primary choice here, how much ammunition, how much flying hours you get to a marine unit that is getting ready to deploy to afghanistan to make sure they are ready. believe me, the pentagon has been preparing, making reductions, cutting corners. if you want to say there is a better way, i am all years to the specifics, but just blindly saying make a smarter choice really does not help. the president does not get to make these decisions in the theoretical. he has to make the decisions that are implemented. host: representative smith got his law degree at the university of washington and served as a prosecutor for the city of seattle. jim in enterprise, alabama. republican line. caller: thank you. i have a couple of questions. number one, on the sequester, how much are your democrats planning on cutting out of the military budget? number two, it seems as though the president has been flip- flopping on this. when it first came out, he said it was devastating, it will kill everything in this country. now he said unless you work on a military base, you probably will not see any difference. which one of these statements is a lie? guest: actually, the president made neither of those statements. he has consistently said it will have a sizable impact that will negatively affect the country and the economy. number two, he has not now said it was only affect the military. his cabinet has been out talking about the variety of impacts it will have a bunch of different places. -- it will have in a bunch of different places. i did not vote for the budget control act, but a lot of democrats did, a lot of republicans did, and the president signed it. they all signed it thinking it would not happen. the amount of money cut in defense was put in that law, and the amount was going to be $109 billion total, of which $54 billion was going to be defense. we bought two months, so now we're down to $44 billion this year and if we do not do anything by the end of this year it will be roughly the same amount next year. that is not democrats or republicans making that choice. that is the law. host: this tweet. representative, close some of the 750 bases overseas maybe? guest: we are closing some of them. 750 bases is an overstatement. many of those "bases those quote are one room with -- bases" are one room with six or seven people working in it. our overseas presence has shrunk since the cold war, but our foreign presence is a big part of what our military does. this is a helpful debate we should have as a country. does our ability to project power continue to be critically important to our national security? our overseas presence, that is what it does. we are the guarantors of south korean and japanese security. we have 20,000 troops in south korea. we have aircraft carrier battle groups out there, stations and training on the mission that if north korea were to decide to do something, we would be there to help south korea or japan. that cost a lot of money. if we want to decide that we will not do that anymore, present a deterrent to north korean aggression, that is a choice we can make, but there are implications. do not think we bring them home and nothing happens. i mentioned here and. -- durand. our presence is an -- a deterrent. if the deterrent goes down, if we bring ourselves home from the variety of places we are, that reduces the deterrent to these bad actors from doing things that are contrary to our interests. that is balancing choice. there are some people that are very smart who have written great articles saying we do not need this. it is a discussion we should have, but do not think that those bases have people sitting there playing tiddlywinks all day. they are there for a purpose. we have a specific national security strategy and a long list of requirements. if we change that, make a choice about what we are not going to do. host: chuck hagel -- what is your opinion? guest: i think he is clearly qualified. he has the background in defense. i would be foolish to say his confirmation process went well. he will have to do better than that in terms of building the relationships necessary in the house and the senate because credibility manages -- matters an enormous amount. he will be very dependent on the staff at the pentagon to implement whatever policy he wants. he will need their faith and confidence. he will have to work to earn that in the same thing in the house and the senate. secretary leon panetta and secretary robert gates, they had an enormous amount of credibility in the pentagon and in the congress. in tough times and tough decisions, that enabled them to be very effective. secretary chuck hagel will have to work at that hard it does not come automatically. host: what is your relationship with the chair of the armed services committee, buck mckeon? guest: it is outstanding. we have a long tradition of the chair and the ranking majority and minority working closely together. our joint staffs -- the only committee in congress that does that -- we are committed to working together in a bipartisan fashion and to passing the defense authorization bill which we have done for 51 years. even the appropriations committee did not get anything done last year. we did. we have members that are committed to bipartisanship and getting our bill done. we do it the old-fashioned way, going through subcommittee, full committee, house, senate, conference committee and we pass legislation. the leadership is not come in and say your is your bill, please pass it. we worked the progress -- process. host: finally, us policy in syria, and final and -- possibly in mali. guest: we are stepping up efforts to find people in serious we can support. president assad has to go. it is confusing as to who will replace him. caution was wise. diving into a military conflict we do not understand could cost lives. when there were problems in lebanon we lost 241 marines. or, somalia, in 1992. it is inappropriate -- it has been appropriate. in mali, we successfully dealt with somalia because we worked with uganda, building a port and it was primarily locally driven. it was working with the local population. we will have to do the same thing with mali and algeria, chad -- it is a real threat. if all candidates comfortable hanging out in mali, it could be the next afghanistan, pakistan, where they could carry out attacks. host: are you satisfied with the french taking the lead at this point and with the level the us is offering? guest: yes, i am satisfied with the french taking the lead. we are not offering as much support as we need to, but that is because we have to build the relationships and the capacity. we were concerned about what was going on there three or four years ago, as al qaeda has been active there as a offshoot from algeria, but we were in iraq, afghanistan, gearing up in yemen and somalia, so we do not have the assets there. as we have drawn out of iraq and freeing up in afghanistan, we are freeing up some assets. host: we have been talking with representative adam smith, democrat of washington, ranking member on the armed services committee. representative smith, please come back. guest: anytime. thank you very much. host: the house is coming in at 9:00 a.m. this morning, and they are working on the violence against women act that was passed by the senate a couple of weeks ago. that is what the house is working on today. the senate, when they come into session today, they will be working on sequestration bills. there is a democratic bill and a republican bill and as ed o'keefe told us at the beginning of the show, he does not expect to see them pass, but the debate in about the sequestration. the house is about to open the door and come into session. thank you for being with us. one of the reminder, if you go to booktv.org, which is c-span 2, we have posted right there at the top, bob woodward talking about his book "price of politics" to us got a lot of attention over the sequestration issues. go online to watch bob woodward talking about his book. thank you for being with us. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 28, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, to whom we see what we could be and what we can become, thank you for giving us another day. in these days, our nation is faced with pressing issues while we honor the memory of many who acted courageously a half century ago to bring greater freedoms to all americans. grant wisdom, knowledge and understanding to us all as well as an extra measure of charity. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house who labor within these halls under public scrutiny. give them peace and an abundance of prudence in the work they do. and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow. mr. barrow: members and guests, please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, at midnight tonight the department of defense and other government agencies will fall victim to the president's sequester. every american family will be affected by the shifting of funds. in south carolina's second congressional district, the army base at fort jackson and columbia is expected to lose $75 million. the savannah river site will be forced to furlough hardworking employees, install critical -- and stall critical missions due to a possible $200 million cuts. both of these cuts will endanger our national security. the president and the senate have refused to negotiate until a possible solution until today. house republicans have voted twice to avoid sequestration. our nation has a spending problem, and we must address these issues before it is too late and our debt spirals out of control. the president should change course and begin working with both houses of congress to tackle the national debt which threatens american families. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, in a few hours the so-called sequester will begin to take effect, and the things we cannot do without will be cut just as the same as the things we don't need and can't afford. what got us to this point was the failure to compromise. what kept us from solving that problem is the same failure to compromise. only in washington can so many folks agree on what the problem is, yet no solution is brought to the table. my home state of georgia is home to one of the vital installations, including fort gordon, our central nervous system of our national defense. nearly $1 billion will spread across these installations and will have devastating impacts on the surrounding communities. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to come back to the table, find the spending cuts to avoid this disaster and put these partisan games behind us. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, in 2011 i voted against the budget control act and president obama 's sequester, because i believe in fear they posed a grave threat to national security. mr. brooks: that fear has come true. as i stand here today, north alabamians face job furloughs in the thousands because washington would rather spend money on privileged programs than protect national security. mr. speaker, i voted against sequestration at every opportunity. i sent a letter to the white house calling on the president to face and avoid the horrendous consequences of his sequester. i've escorted members of the house armed services committee arged reginald arsenal to help them better understand how our civilian defense workers are critical to america's security, and i have repeatedly co-sponsored legislation to end the sequester. for nearly two years i have been fighting sequestration and the hallowing out of our armed forces. it's time for the president and the senate to do the same. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: many of my constituents asked the question -- what work are we doing for them? i'm very glad for them this morning we will finally end the journey for the violence against women act and finally vote on a recognized compromise that the senate has proposed. but i also say i am not here to talk about process and blame when it comes to this pending sequester which most americans do not understand. but i'm ready to work, and i believe we should stay at work. we should follow the senate plan that follows the buffett rule and provides for modest reductions in defense and does not provide for these devastating cuts until 2014. we can get this done, but we cannot have any compromise when one side refuses to acknowledge that it takes revenue to run this government to be able to ensure that people have the resources that they need when there's a natural disaster or that our military has the resources that they need or, for example, in texas, my colleague who refuted the idea that i stand for children, where we're losing some 4,000 spots in head start. we can do something, madam speaker. we need to simply stay and work and follow the senate's plan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: madam speaker, i rise today to ask the house to lead and turn away from mayan politics. the water's going to end. this strategy over the president's automatic cuts borders on untruthful. for example, the f.a.a. released a list of 200 regional airportes that could potentially close due to the president's cuts, saying at least 100 of them would be closed. how account f.a.a., this 200 airports, and then admits that only 100 of them will close? it's mayan politics. 200 affected airports puts more fear in people than 100 regional airports. even with tomorrow's spending cuts, f.a.a. operations and facilities will have $500 million more than 2008 levels, and air traffic is lower. more money, less traffic and dramatic cuts. my seventh grader would say that's fuzzy math, dad, and it's true. he's right. the truth will prevail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. >> as a member of the veterans' affairs committee and as american and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant veteran community. ms. brownley: i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrificed and defended our country. if congress fails to stop the across-the-board and unnecessary cuts at this moment, so many programs that help veterans, like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced. more veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is the time to be doing more and not less. for our veterans' sake, we need to come together to stop this sequester time. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. 52,653, a lot of numbers have been associated with our skyrocketing debt and government overspending but 52,653 is a particularly striking one and should give everyone pause as the specter of an unwanted sequester looms over the federal budget this week. mr. hultgren: it's the amount that each american man, woman and child owes to pay off the country $16.6 trillion debt. clearly overspending by the federal government has saddled us and our children with unsustainable debt, and just as clearly, any alternative must include reduction in spending. i'm not looking for winners and losers in d.c. i want the american people to win when we make the cuts that need to be made. controlling spending is a necessity. targeting spending cuts, such as the house twice proposed and passed, is vital to the sequestration solution. there is nothing worse than passing on a legacy to our children of a lower standard of living. madam speaker, we can and must deal with this issue of debt and overspending so our children will not have to face $52,653. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. while congress is dealing with this manufactured sequester crisis, we have a real climate crisis occurring right outside the window. there is clarity on what should be a bipartisan issue with the public. seven out of 10 americans believe that scientists that climate change is happening and that humans are making it worse. every day americans see the impact with record droughts, extreme storm events. 2012 set more than 3,500 monthly records for extreme heat, rain and snow. this week 38 leading republican and national security advisors urged international action to prevent and mitigate the impact of climate change. the letter highlights the importance of immediate action and expresses national security concerns should we fail to address these issues. we should be addressing the real climate crisis instead of dealing with phony, madeup fiscal crisis. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter this letter in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delbene: i rise to honor andrew, serving as chair of the washington state chapter, a local leader known for his intelligence, humor and dedication and andrew was also a friend. over the course of his life, andrew was a strong advocate for the protection of our wild lands and rivers, natural resources that make the pacific northwest such a special place. as an avid rafter, andrew had a great love for the rivers of washington state. his early advocacy work laid the groundwork to protect the middle forks and prat rivers and expand alpine lakes wilderness, a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. i was fortunate to get to know him when we served on the board of our children's school, and here i saw his passion and love for his community and his family. andrew was a man that was large in stature, voice and heart. my thoughts and prayers go to his wife, mica, son, peter, and his entire family. he will be missed by all of us who were fortunate to know him. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 83, i call up senate 47 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 47, an act to re-authorize the violence against women act of 1994. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 83, the bill is considered as read. after one hour debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-2, if offered by the majority leader or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 47 under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: today as we consider the violence against women act, aid like to start by thanking our majority leader, eric cantor, and many republicans in the house for their time and commitment to this important issue. the violence against women act first passed on the floor of this very house nearly two decades ago. and it has long enjoyed bipartisan support. years later after two re-authorizations, a pivotal supreme court case, and a nationwide expansion of laws condemning violence against women, republicans are committed to protecting victims of violence and putting offenders behind bars. that's why we are bringing it to the floor today. it's important to protect all women against acts of domestic violence and other haven't crimes, and ensure that he resources go directly to the victims. because that is what this bill is really about. it's about people. it's time to remember why this bill passed nearly two decades ago. protecting women was our first priority then and it should be our first priority now. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, when congress enacted the original violence against women act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very clear and immediate message to the american people, no, and i emphasize, no woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. no one would ever be forced to fear for their lives or the safety in their own homes because of necessaryic violence. -- domestic violence. that promise formed the foundation of our work then and it has served as a cornerstone of our efforts in the years since to authorize and strengthen this landmark law. even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same and strong. over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. today on the floor of the house we will have a very clear choice. we have a choice to support the bipartisan legislation that has passed in the united states senate. it passed with a 78-22, 77% of the senate voted for this legislation. the majority of the republicans in the senate supported this legislation. all of the women in the senate, democrats and republicans alike, support the bipartisan legislation that i hope we will have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the house. in contrast we have the house republican proposal which, while described in so lovely terms, are a step backward for the women of america and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault. it's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the republicans looking through that they do not see the followy of their -- folly of their ways on this legislation they are proposing. not only is it much weaker than the senate bill, it is much weaker than current law. and that is why, that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from a to y. we don't have a z. any groups that have anything to do throughout our country in every state oppose the republican legislation that is on the floor today. that is why the american bar association has stated in its letter to members in opposition to the republican bill, it says, the house substitute eliminates certain critical improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the law that has been successful. so let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today. our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the senate, says to all of america's women, you will be protected. the republican bill says to the men and women of america, we want to protect america's women. everybody step forward who is an american woman, not so fast if you are an immigrant -- from the immigrant community, if you're a native american, if you happen to be part of the lgbt community. it's just not right. america has always been and our constitution demonstrates a country of expanding opportunity and protection and diminishing discrimination. today on the floor of the house the republican bill discriminates against a woman if she is lesbian or gay or whatever, lgbt, any member of that community, discriminates against the woman if she lives on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation. discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status. exactly the women who are the most vulnerable who have a situation where there is a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever, the most in need of this bill are excluded by the republican, the republican proposal. so this is nothing to be proud of, this republican proposal. it must be defeated. and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the senate party overwhelmingly passed and supported legislation which strengthens current law not weakens it and expands the legislation, which was -- i was here when the bill passed before. i saw the great work of pat schroeder and louise slaughter who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the rankling democrat on the rules committee. i salute the work of joe biden who was the author without vice president biden at that time, there would not have been a violence against women act. and i was so proud of the work of our chairman and a leader on this legislation then and now, chairman john conyers, former chair of the judiciary committee , now ranking member. we'll be hearing more from him shortly. but he has been there steady and strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. thank you. our legislation today, the house propose -- the democratic proposal, which is really -- is a bipartisan proposal from the senate, but it's authored and presented by congresswoman gwen moore of wisconsin. congresswoman gwen moore has shared her own personal story with us and the strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. and when we pass this legislation, and we will, it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in the legislation means in the homes of america and for women who are at risk. now, who thinks this is a good idea? i don't know. i hear the gentlewoman who commands great respect in this body describe this bill as if it's a good thing. it is not. when -- why would this take so long? it's been over 500 days, madam speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration of the violence against women act. last spring, almost one year ago, april of last year, the senate in a bipartisan way passed violence against women act. in a bipartisan way. months have gone by with no re-authorization, congress ended a new congress came in, the senate once again voted, again, in a strong bipartisan way, for legislation. the house republicans want to be odd man out on this, or odd person out on this. and have a bill that is weakened -- has weakened current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the senate bill does. other of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it, and i -- it's just too much to put into the record of all the groups who oppose the house bill. it is almost unanimous. the only people holding out were those hopeful that something, light would be shed on this on the republican side of the aisle. but this is a remarkable day because we have clarity between the two proposals that are coming forth. one of them has the support of democrats and republicans in the senate. democrats in the house. the president of the united states stands ready to sign it. the other is opposed by almost everybody who has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we have the documentation to prove that. and it goes into the specific -- that go into the specifics. but i just want to say that -- how proud i am of congresswoman gwen moore. she comes from wisconsin. she is a respected leader in the house. she has made this -- i would say her life's work, but she has a number of things on her agenda, but she has made a tremendous difference. not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of america's women. all of america's women. with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: just to make a couple of clarifications. number one, the house, led by the republicans, passed legislation in early may last year to re-authorize the violence against women act. number two, funding has continued. $599 million. at this time i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from north dakota, kevin cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields how much time to the gentleman from north dakota? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, madam speaker. just under three years ago, a 2-year-old little boy in bismarck, north dakota, watched for half an hour while his stepfather beat his mother to death. today that little boy is my 5-year-old son. chris and i were blessed and are blessed, have been able to adopt, where we work every day to dilute the memories of that awful night with new memories of love and affection. i know the scourge of violence against women personally. it is not an abstract concept to my family. it's very real. that is why i support and will vote today for the violence against women act, because i want the shelters and programs that keep women safe to be well funded. i want the advocates of change to have the resources, to turn victims into victors. i want the law enforcement officers and the prosecutors to have the tools to impose justice on behalf of my son and other women and children. it's not just theoretical to me, it's personal to me. while i support the violence against women act because it's personal, i support this amendment because it's principled. our constitution in its genius guarantees due process. due process to the accused. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is known as the cornerstone of american justice. it is what gives moral authority to our system of justice. by codifying language like acknowledging inherent sovereignty, i fear we risk giving up the moral high ground for a political slogan that does nothing to protect the victims of violence. even if you are willing to rationalize trading justice through due process, guaranteed in the fifth and 14th amendments of our constitution, we pledged to uphold, please consider the damage we will have done if a court overturns this act and its protections all so that we want -- because we want add good political slogan more than a good law. friends, let's vote for the violence against women act. it not only protects the vulnerable in our society, but also protects the civil liberties upon which our system of justice is built. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. . the gentlelady from california. ms. pelosi: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin, congresswoman moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. as i stand here, i pray that this body will do as the senate has done and come together as one, to protect all women from violence. as i think about the lgbt victims that are not here, the native americans that are not here, the immigrants that are not included in this bill, i will say, ain't they women? they deserve protections. we talk about the constitutional rights. don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? ain't they women? and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i recognize a champion and prosecuting those with domestic violence in domestic violence situations, pat meehan from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: what time does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside this rhetoric and to find a way to work together to pass the violence against women act, to move this important legislation forward in a way in which we can reach a resolution. i come to this as a former prosecutor who has seen firsthand the implications, come to give voice to people who do not have an opportunity to speak for themselves, because one of the things that we realize is that a woman will be victimized 12 times, beaten 12 times before she has the courage to come forward to speak to somebody who needs to be there to be able to help give them a sense of comfort and dignity to be able to retain control over the circumstances. the violence against women act enables the kinds of resources to be there to have the trained personnel who can make a difference. i had a chance to visit sane nurses who work in emergency wards, giving victims of rape the dignity to be able to do an examination in the privacy of a room as opposed to being violated a second time out in a public space in an emergency ward, to reduce the time they have to spend for that examination from 13 hours after a rape to two hours to be able to collect the evidence and help that victim to be able to make their case if they so choose in court. i have seen the chance to work with victims of -- on college campuses, women on college campuses who have reported they have been victims of rape or attempted rape. so unquestionably, we must find a way to pass the violence against women act in the same way we must reduce the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and the shameful misrepresentations on both sides about the good intentions to try to do this. there are differences of opinion in small areas. we must find a way to get over those. i rise today to make sure we give a voice to those victims, to work together to find a way to pass the violence against women act. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington state, congresswoman delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: i want to thank the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor for a debate, at a time when we must resolve some real disgrments on how to move our country -- disagreements on how to move our country forward. i am glad we're going to pass the landmark violence against women act. however, i cannot support the house substitute amendment because it fails to improve critical improvements passed by a large bipartisan margin in the senate that would strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women. i'm particularly disappointed that this amendment owe mitts provisions that would enable tribes to address domestic violence in indian country. this is an issue that's critical in my district. the lumme nation, comprks, which i visited just last week in bellingham, washington, have seen an increase in violence against women over the past several years. the house substitute would require mistreatment of indian and non-indian offenders while the bipartisan senate bill fill this gap. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment and support the senate re-authorization bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. cap it toe: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, violence against women act -- mrs. capito: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, the violence against women act. i witnessed firsthand the good work that they do and that other statewide advocates do in this area of sexual assault and violence against women, and i realize this is way long overdue and necessary. in west virginia every nine minutes a call comes in, is made about our domestic violence on the doosk violence hotline. -- domestic violence hotline. i'm here to talk about an incident that we don't want to see happen again. i want to talk about jalele. he was in a car with his mother and his mother's boyfriend and his mother's boyfriend began beating his mother. and he got so afraid, and the car stopped on the interstate, jalele got out of that car and started running across the interstate to get help for his mother. and he was hit and killed in the interstate because he was witnessing firsthand one of the most horrible acts of domestic violence. his mother was in danger, and he wanted to help her. and if we don't intervene, if we don't find help, if we don't end the cycle of violence for the jalele clements of this country, we're doing a great disservice to our country. i'm going to be voting no on the house bill and yes on the senate bill for jalele clements and all the jalele clements in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i yield one minute to the chair of the house democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: i thank the leader for yielding. my friends, every single day in america, three women die at the hands of domestic violence. yet, this congress allowed the violence against women act to expire more than 500 days ago. every one of those 500 days, three women dying at the hands of domestic violence. there's been a balanced bipartisan solution passed in the senate by a vote of 68-31 that has been sitting on the table for almost a year to re-enact the violence against women act. the failure or reluctance of this house to do its work for the american people seems to have now become business as usual. this should not be the new normal. the 113th congress has now been in session for 56 days in 2013, and it has only now that a debate on an up or down vote on the bipartisan senate bill will have an opportunity to be had. every woman in america deserves a clean bill to come before them to re-enact the violence against women act, and those three women in america who today desperately seek to beat the odds and live to see another day deserve a vote. we must defeat the republican substitute amendment and pass the senate bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congressman from california, a physician and a new member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bera: today i rise as a doctor to talk about the patients i've taken care of who suffered as victims of domestic violence. as a doctor, we don't choose to treat one patient or another patient. we choose to take care of every patient. we choose to protect all women in america. that is who we are as a nation. we choose to protect protect all women in america. i urge this body to reject the house version of this bill and pass the bipartisan senate version. that is a reflection of who we are in america and our values. as the father of a daughter, this is personal. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where we value and respect every woman regardless of background, ethnicity, creed. this is personal, and let's do the right thing. i urge this body to do the right thing today and pass the senate version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, congresswoman jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: violence is violence is violence and women are women are women. for the second year in a row, the republicans have advanced legislation that not only excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections that are included in the bipartisan senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back the central protection that are already the law of the land. we've heard from law enforcement, victims and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan senate bill. and last week more than 1,300 organizations who represent and support millions of victims nationwide join together and said to bring the senate bill to the house floor for, quote, a vote as speedly as possible. we need to pass the senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to remind the body that the house amendment actually increases protections for everyone. no protection is denied. at this time i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady from indiana two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, thank you. i rise today to urge passage of the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. let me start off by saying that i support this bill because it's the right thing to do. i'm committed to ending violence against all women. this bill takes the necessary steps to protect the rights of all of our mothers, our daughters and wives. the statistics are appalling. it's reported that in the united states alone more than 24 people each minute are victims of some sort of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. mrs. walorski: that equals more than 12 million individuals each year. these types of crimes happen to individuals from all walks of life. no gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status is immune. this bill provides protection for everyone who may be victim of sexual violence. this bill makes programs more effective. these reforms prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. they ensure that more money is being used to assist victims and reduce the amount of violence that happens against women. by eliminating a amount of money that can be spent on salaries anded a minute straightive costs, this bill -- and administrative costs, this bill maximizes the amount of funding that goes directly to the victims. madam speaker, it's time for us to do the right thing and pass this bill. a constituent of mine from south bend, indiana, recently wrote my office. she said, and i quote, as a woman who has experienced domestic violence and stalking in my own home and as a physician who has cared for persons affected by domestic violence, i see this as an important tool to improve the quality of life in our nation. i urge the members of this chamber, both republican and democrat, to do the right thing and pass this bill today. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, and the gentlewoman from washington state reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, freshman member, congress woman -- i'm glaming everybody in california -- from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. frankel: i rise in opposition to the house substitute amendment and urge the support of the bipartisan violence against women act sent over by the senate. . i do so on behalf of women like olga who thought she entered into a dream marriage for herself and her two small children. the marriage turned into a nightmare when her husband became insulting, aggressive, controlling, and like a stranger. imprisoning olga and her children in their own home. not even allowing the children to go to school. she fled to south florida and nurtured back to emotional and financial health by an organization in my home area called women in distress. the senate's re-authorization of the violence against women act will save even more lives across america, lives like olga and all women who have been abused by their spouse or partner. so today, colleagues, let's stand up for our mothers, sisters, and our daughters and pass the bipartisan senate bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington investigate. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congressman keating of mass marks former prosecutor and champion on fighting for america's women. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: one meant to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. keating: thank you. madam speaker, i was a d.a. for 12 years. i solicited and actually used these funds. so as we talk about issues, people see issues, i see faces. i see faces of innocent women who are victims. and i see faces of the perpetrators themselves, the rapists, the batterers, the abusers who sought to isolate these victims. strip them away from their friends, their family, social service agencies, law enforcement. i used these funds to create a life line to these victims. breaking down walls that exist in terms of people who spoke a different language, had a different culture, had a different national. -- nationality. madam speaker, this amendment creates walls, creates these barriers that make the victims more vulnerable and strengthens the hand of the perpetrators. please, all of you, join me in voting against this amendment. and then, then let's all join togetherle with a piece of legislation that does not punish the victim -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. keating: behind bars. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to another champion for protecting women, mr. larsen of washington state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larsen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the bipartisan senate version of the violence against women act that we vote on today. we wouldn't be here today without the courage of victims from all of our communities. women and men, rich and poor, immigrants, native american, folks from the lgbt community. all those who spoke out about their experiences. domestic violence does not discriminate. and with this bill domestic violence protection will no longer discriminate. this bill improves protections for immigrants, for native americans, members of the lgbt community. in my district a vice chair explained why the protections are so critical. she told me that for far too long native american women have lacked serious protections on our reservations. this bill will make it easier for them to seek justice. and it also includes important amendments to improve enforcement of the international marriage broker regulation act, a law that i sponsored in 2006. those amendments strengthen protections congress put in place for immigrant women like ms. king who was murdered in my district by her husband in 2000. i urge my colleagues to he oppose the house vawa substitute and to pass s. 47. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomans to reserve. we recognize the gentlewoman from california. ms. pelosi: may i respectfully request the time of the:00. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 22 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has -- washington has 20 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you. madam speaker, member of congress who has been really a champion on this issue for a very long time, congresswoman lois capps of california, health professional in her own right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the leader for yielding and i rise today in opposition to the republican amendment that would undermine key provisions in the violence against women act re-authorization. and to urge strong support for the underlying senate bill which protects our young people on our school campuses. vawa is a vital program addressing violence women holisically through prevention programs, survivor supports, and provisions to hold perpetrators accountable. but also a symbol that relationship violence and sexual assault is real and that it's unacceptable. has been a symbol until this congress we can put aside our differences and come together to do what is right for violence victims and survivors. we saw this in the senate. and we'll hopefully see it here in the house. this is still true. our daughters, our sisters, mothers, no matter where they are, including on our school campuses, deserve to live without fear of abuse, and we cannot delay their safety any longer. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the senate bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise this morning to speak in favor of s. 47, the senate version of the violence against women act. i want to thank speaker boehner and leader cantor for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. the bombom line is the programs health save lives in new jersey and across america. we need to expand the current success of vawa so that we can get even more women, help even more women escape the nightmare of domestic violence. mr. runyan: while we are long overdue in passing this bill, i am glad we are here today and i urge my colleagues to support s. 47, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congresswoman kirkpatrick of arizona, who has, again, every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: i was born and raised on the white mountain of apache nation. the necklace i wear was made by an apache woman. i have seen firsthand the troubled and hardships our tribes experience. now i represent 12 native american tribes and i'm here standing on the floor of congress to give them a voice. our native american women who need resources and protection face great hardships. they often live in very remote areas. unfortunately native american women are 2 1/2 times more likely to be assaulted in their lifetimes than other women. as a prosecutor i also saw firsthand the need to protect those who are vulnerable. that's why i pushed so hard for the bipartisan senate passed version of this legislation. this legislation strengthens protections for native american women and so many others. my district needs this legislation. i urge my colleagues from both sides to come together and pass the senate version of the violence against women act today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all let me thank leader pelosi and congresswoman gwen moore for their tremendous leadership to re-authorize the violence against women act. today we have the opportunity to really stand up for tribal women, the lbgt community, imgrant women, women all across the united states and finally pass the strongly bipartisan senate version of the violence against women re-authorization act. we should have done this a long time ago. after much grandstanding, feet dragging, and shameful politicking over protecting the right for all women to feel safe in their homes and workplace, i hope today that finally we can come together to say that violence against any woman is never an option. when i was in the california legislature, i authored the violence against women act for the state of california, and it was signed into law by a republican governor. it was indeed a bipartisan effort. as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, i know how traumatic it is, and i know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. that is what the senate's vawa re-authorization will accomplish for all women. i don't mean for some women. i mean for all women. i urge us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the champion on our side of the aisle for the re-authorization of this important legislation, our majority leader, eric cantor, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady. and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. as chairwoman of our conference, as a strong advocate for families for women, for children in our conversation -- conference salute her and her efforts to improve the ability for individuals, women who are subject to domestic abuse to get the relief that they need. and in that spirit today, madam speaker, i come to the floor in support of the substitute and the amendment that we are offering today. today, madam speaker, a mother and her daughter will go to a shelter seeking safe harbor because they are scared. another young woman will walk into a hospital emergency room seeking treatment from sexual assault. in some cases women will wait to report haven't crimes because they don't feel there is a support system in place to help them. our goal in strengthening the violence against women act is simple. we want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive, and dangerous situations. we want to make sure all women are safe and have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children, and their families. we want them to know that somebody is there and willing to help. and we want them to know that those who commit these horrendous crimes will be punished and not let go. madam speaker, that's why we feel so strongly about providing the proper support system and needed relief to thousands ever victims and survivors so that they can get on with their lives. for the past several months we have worked hard in this house to build consensus and to put together the strongest bill possible to improve on that which came from the senate. today i encourage my colleagues to support the house amendment to the violence against women act in order to end violence against all people, against all women, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, who has been a champion for ending violence against women for all, all, all women in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: madam speaker, last congress it was with great disappointment that for the first time since the violence against women act was signed into law in 1994, house republicans failed to give us a vote and congress failed to re-authorize this important legislation that has reduced domestic abuse and provided domestic abuse and provided victims of

Transcripts For CSPAN2 U 20130227

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Rachel Maddow Show 20150609

police officer there on the left has just been advised a couple of hours earlier that a nearby maximum federal security had an escape. so this police officer in the individualvideo and every other police officer is looking for the escapee and they come across this guy jogging along a railroad track. he is carrying no id and matches the physical description of a man that just escaped from nearby, and this encounter between the police officer and that man that was jogging by the railroad lasts about ten minutes. you might think it's stressful for the officer looking for the es cap pea and in this case it was not stressful at all. >> what is your address? >> i do not have an address. >> we're working on houses and stuff like that like roofing. >> roofing. okay. >> for my brother. >> okay. all right. what it is is that we have an escapee escapee escapee. >> from where? >> prison. >> does the suspect wear glasses? >> nothing about glasses. >> can you find out. i am out with a white male on the tracks. the bad thing about it is that you're matching up to him. >> that sucks, doesn't it. >> yeah. that sucks. the guy that the police officer was speaking to was the escapee from the federal prison. the cop did stop him and talk to him for about ten minutes. the guy did recognize the police officer -- the police officer did recognize that the guy matched the escape convicts description, but they talked for ten minutes and he let him go. that says something remarkable to the cop in that situation. unless you think that the cop was only one to blame here it should be note that had the guy that he was dealing with was really really good at escaping all sort of law enforcement officers. that guy that was jogging along had escaped from federal prison that day. maximum security but that was the third time that he escaped from prison or jail. the first time was in north dakota in 1988. he was aresd on suspension of murder. he was in a room with three detectives and hand cuffed him to a chair and had a tube of lip balm and the three detectives in the room with him and somehow reached into the pocket and used it to grease up the wrist and slip out and then ran out of the room with the three detectives chasing him, and got away. that was the first time. he ran five blocks. stole a car. drove until the car stalled out and hid in an apartment building. a long article in the new york er says that it was a report er from the daily news that saw him sneaking into the apartment building that day. the report er called the police and told them where it was. he climbed out of the window and lucked in to the tree. it was only because he could not hold on that he felle and they took him back into custody. he had escape from the county jachlt his next stop and escape was from the north dakota state prison. that happened in 1992. in that case he somehow got himself into a ventilation duck and wiggled his way free to the outside. in that case he did not caught right away. he was gone for ten months before finding him. they did find him, and then the next place he locked up from and then escaped was in louisiana the maximum federal security prison. having escaped from two other facilities already by the time that the feds had had. he must have been casing the joint immediately. he mouf been casing it the whole time before he figured out how he was going to get into that. the way that he escaped was intrep. he got a job which was repairing and sewing mail bags. in the course of that he figured out a way to mail himself. he sealed himself up and got himself mailed to freedom. got into a mail bag and mailed him to a warehouse and busted out that he sealed himself into and got himself an energy drink and went off down the railroad tracks. >> put yourself in my position. >> yeah i know. >> i am not throwing you against. >> do you think that i am a prison escapee. >> think about it. they have years and years. >> now, when i crossed the track i saw you running and i said well, how lucky can i be? >> no nope. nope. i am not a prison es cap pea. you would have ran by now. you know that yourself. you would have ran by now. >> had he stood there speaking in an accent not his own and making small talk with the cop and then the cop told him to go. he warned him that he might get stopped again. that was in 2006. that guy that escape from all of the facilities and that facility that day is richard lee mctheir. after he got north dakota in federal prison and then the cop, he did stay out for a while. he did live free for another year and a half and caught up to him 18 months after breaking out of the prison in louisiana. they caught up with him 18 months later. have no idea how he got from louisiana to brunswick. that's where he caught him in 2007. they caught him because the homemade job that he did on the vehicle that he had stolen. the tint job was so bad that they thought that was reason enough to see who it was in the car. >> richard has a long history as an escape artist. he made his way out of a prison last year by mailing himself to freedom. he has been on the run ever since until yesterday. police here spotted a suspicious van driving around the city and what tipped them off was is that van was tinted black. they asked the driver to step out and it was mcknarr. >> this guy was an amazing escape artist. richard lee mcnair. he escaped everywhere that they locked him up. he got away 400 meters running from the canadian cops in the end. he would escape and get caught. escape and get caught. that's the thing here. no matter how good that you are and no matter how amazing and the skill or luck or violence goes into the escape these guys that escape they also get caught. in 2008 it was a prison in michigan city and they got out and lasted a few days before all three of them were recaptured. in 2008 it was in new mexico. eight guys escaped all at once. they went up pipes in the prison wall and popped out through the roof. eight guys all at once and all recaptured. in 1999, it was a rare escape from death row at the louisiana state pen. they smuggled blades of the doors and cells. they did not mablg itke it off the prison grounds before recaptured. even the famous daring helicopter escapes. those guys get caught too. this one was a year ago today. remember this one. it landed on the prison ground and picked them up and fluew away. they got caught and within a couple of weeks they were back in the prison where they escaped. the last one was in 2003 from a maximum security prison in new york. two convicted murders in that prison and a complex plot. they got sledge hammers and other tools to bust holes, and then made the amazing dummies. they propped the dummies in the bed and looked like they were sleeping when they came to check on them. they went up and out of the prison through the ventilation shaft in 2003. they still had to get over the walls after the shaft. for that they yaused torn bed sheets they made into a rope. because of what they had the do the rope that they made was 61 feet long. that was a amazing. that must have taken them months or years to plan that escape in new york in 2003 but even with all of that planning and complexity the success that they got out, they were back in custody in two days. they get caught. as much thought and effort comes into the average maximum security prison escape it seems like it's not a long term victory. they get caught. right now we're in that between the time when two maximum security prisoners were discovered missing from the cells and we're between that time and everybody expects is the news of the capture in up state new york or across the border in canada. one of the two men that escaped is david sweat. he is 35 and a man who he shot 22 times and ran over while the deputy was still alive. the other escapee is richard map that's serving life for dismembering a man in buffalo, new york. after that murder and before he was arrested richard fled to mexico and while in mexico killed another man there. served nine years in a mexican prison before coming back to u.s. to face the earlier murder in buffalo. richard matt has a history too. e has a history of not just fleeing before he could get arrested, but having escaped from custody. in 1986 the same guy was in jail in new york on forge ji charges and he got out of the cell when they popped the lock on the cell door and scaled a nine foot tall. he got cut up in the process, and got out. he spent five days at large before he was captured again. now he is out again. and now this massive manhunt is under way with the clinton correctional facility. the focus is on figuring out how the two murders were able to escape from clinton and how they got power pools that they use to saw through the cell walls and get in to the steam pipe that lead to a nearby neighborhood that they popped out through a manhole cover. the focus is figuring out how they got out and the pressing question of whether or not they had help. there are some reports that a female employee that worked inside might have been involved somehow in the escape efforts. seeing how they did it and stop it from happening again and if there's a huge breech that's job one, right? no, that's job two. these two are still ton loose. they were discovered missing and so job one is finding them. if pass is prolonged, they will be found. it's a question of when. just outside of the prison. >> of course thank you. what can you tell us about the status of the investigation and the specifically the search and how they're trying to find the guys and how it's going? >> well i mean it's ongoing. there's been rumors flying all day that places they have been seen. there's a number of lawyer enforcement agents that entered a house and a barn. they did not have seem to have found anything. it's one of the situations where apparently the police have received over 300 leads. they're try to go track them down. that's a pain stacking process and starting the weak is taking a little while. at the same time there's investigation ongoing inside of the prison behind me as to how the guys did this. >> there have been some reports today that there's at least the possibility possibility that someone that worked inside of the prison helped them in some way. can you pit anything on whether that seems credible? >> reporter: we were able to confirm that today and there's investigation of a female employee that may have had relationship or the kind with the inmates richard matt. beyond that there's not a lot of details. there's some talks that she may work in the laundry room of the facility. in a maximum security prison behind me you're talking several thousand prisoners and a huge support staff. you have people that do the landry and janitorial services and training and all sorts of things that go into a prison of this size. there's a lot of interaction between the prisoners and civilians civilians. the investigators think that one of the relationships went too far and helped with the escape. >> in terms of the way that they got out, we have seen a lot of frankly up close pictures of the means by which they got out of the cells and the steam pipe. is its clear what kind of tools that they need and what kind of tools that they use and get access from that cell block? >> if it's clear, they're not making it clear to us. in talking to the people and the cuts if you look and see the way that the cuts go along the wall the cell block wall and the pipes that they climbed through. i talked to a couple of guys and said that was a grind er. this was not a sloppy job. they knew what they were doing when they made the cut. as to how they got the equipment, that's a major ongoing point of the in investigation investigation. there was a lot of construction going on in the facility at the time. there was crews coming and going and therapies that one of the contractors was in on it or left a piece of equipment behind and continued to cut the hole. >> justin with the new york times outside of the clinton correctional facility. thanks for helping us understand that. >> absolutely. thank you. >> it's interesting. yes, they have been escapes before, but there's not that that there's a protocol. the town has a small er population than the prison population than the very large and old prison up against the canadian border. to see the scale of it to find these guys is just -- i mean it's an impressive response. until they find them it's not impressive enough. these guys will be found. we don't know how long they have been on the land but they will be found if history is here. lots more tonight. stay with us. legalzoom. legal help is here. audible safety beeping audible safety beeping audible safety beeping the nissan rogue with safety shield technologies. the only thing left to fear is you imagination. nissan. innovation that excites. my name is jamir dixon and i'm a locate and mark fieldman for pg&e. most people in the community recognize the blue trucks as pg&e. my truck is something new... it's an 811 truck. when you call 811, i come out to your house and i mark out our gas lines and our electric lines to make sure that you don't hit them when you're digging. 811 is a free service. i'm passionate about it because every time i go on the street i think about my own kids. they're the reason that i want to protect our community and our environment, and if me driving a that truck means that somebody gets to go home safer, then i'll drive it every day of the week. together, we're building a better california. a rule of campaigning was violated this weekend. it was not putting funny stuff on top of your head when you're running for president. if we have noted this rule once but it's a million times. do not put stuff on your head. do not do this. do not do this. don't do it. it's been a rule for a long time for a reason. it's important. that rule was violated this weekend very badly. details coming up. based on 6 different criteria, why did a panel of 11 automotive experts name the volkswagen golf motor trend's 2015 car of the year? we'll give you four good reasons. the volkswagen golf. starting at $19,295, there's an award-winning golf for everyone. there's one candidate that held elected office as a democrat republican. there's one that's held office as all three of those things and the only candidate that's certained the public as a mayor were and as a governor and as a u.s. senator. same guy. he is lincoln the first ever american ever candidate in the great state of rhode island. he is rung as democrat for president this year and he is going to be my guest here tomorrow night for interview. looking for ward to that conversation. looking forward to interviewing as many as i can. that means bernie sanders, martin i have high hopes for getting him on the time soon. hillary clinton, yeah. i once saw her in washington and said hello and literally that's all that i said. other than that i have never spoken to any clinton, bill hillary or chelsea or socks or buddy. i live in hopes that we will be able to get all of the candidates on the show during this campaign this year. you're all welcome and nor or theous for not being interrupted unless you deserve its. come on. on the republican side it's going to be hard because there's so many of them. so many shows in the year and the next formal announcement is set to be a week from today. jeb bush is going to make the presidential announcement on monday next week and then donald trump making his announcement and then bobby making his announcement the following wednesday. we got to add a nur dotted line to the list of contend ers. as form er wisconsin governor said that he would be making his early next month. he say that is with the wisconsin state budget the presidential announcement will come soon there after. we know to expect niez from scott walk er. this weekend i thought for a hot minute that maybe walk er would not run for president because he flat out violated the i am running for president rule. he rented this o and could have rent aid dark bike. he did not. he went with the snow globe look. you know maybe scott walker is okay here. maybe wearing a new one where they're in a funny get up and it's broken and does not apply anywhere after governor chris christie wowed everyone in his get up. still, you don't have to do this. somebody loves you, right? somebody in your lives and your family. somebody on your campaign and somebody should tell you not to give the world the opportunity to take picture of you like this. not when you're running for president. one more on the debtmocratic sides, and it concerns bernie sanders and hillary clinton. this is in new hampshire where a crowd of a thousand people crammed into a tiny local rec hall to hear him speak t. crowd was loud and large with every seat filled and folks standing in the aisle. a thousand people turned out. this is not the first time that this thing has happened with bernie sanders. over the last couple of weeks he has attracted sold out crowds when he announced and in new hampshire, iowa minnesota and with all of the positive press the sold out crowds are earning senator sanders. hillary clinton campaign is showing the crowds and today the hillary clinton campaign sent this out with a whole series of the photos from the events in the country, arkansas missouri salt lake city utah. they want it to be known that they're running in the office, and organizing in the states. people are turning out to get involved and in every state of the country and yes she is running basically all alone in the national pole. she is so far ahead and she is the favorite to win the nomination on the democratic side, but with what is going on with bernie sanders is a real thing. there is bernie sanders at the pact event and telling the crowd i have a secret. that secret is that we're going win new hampshire. he is saying that i am going to win the new hampshire primary. there's a headline out of this weekend and saying that clinton seeks out a win. what? 252 votes. what does that mean? hillary clinton 49 and sanders 41 percent. >> i am sure that the clinton campaign is not worried about the nomination. senator bernie sanders role in the race is clearly going to be a lot more fun this year than if he was a candidate confined. he is making the race on the side more fun than we thought it would be and less predictable. that's good for everyone in the process including clinton and the liberals in the democratic party. now, let's see what he can do here on this show tonight. stay with us. vanced technology solutions from a trusted it partner. including cloud and hosting services - all backed by an industry leading broadband network and people committed to helping you grow your business. you get a company that's more than just the sum of it's parts. centurylink. your link to what's next. you've heard of a "win-win," right? what about a "win-win-win"? pick up the limited edition metallic droid turbo by motorola. water-repellent. up to 48-hour battery life and ballistic nylon back. that's your first "win." plus, it's only on verizon. the #1 network. there's your next "win." now for final "win." get $250 when you trade in any smartphone. and get 10 gigs of data for $80 a month and $15 per line. the win-win-win. a new way to save without settling. only on verizon. i've smoked a lot and quit a lot but ended up nowhere. now i use this. the nicoderm cq patch, with unique extended release technology helps prevent the urge to smoke all day. i want this time to be my last time. that's why i choose nicoderm cq. it's so shiny. i know, mommy, but it's time to let the new kitchen get some sleep. if you want beautiful results, you know where to go - angie's list. now everyone can get highly rated service even without a membership. you can shop special offers or just tell us what you need and we'll help you find a local company to take care of it. angie's list is there for all your projects, big and small. pretty. come see what the new angie's list can do for you. ♪ [music] ♪ ♪ [music] ♪ defiance is in our bones. new citracal pearls. delicious berries and cream. soft, chewable, calcium plus vitamin d. only from citracal. i like your place. oh, thank you, make yourself at home i'll be right back. hm. she's got x1. alright. huh, hm, ohh... monster? she seemed so nice at dinner. i'm back! ahh! uhh, hi... heyyy, whatcha doing? ohh, just... watchin' law & order. unless you want to watch something else. awww, you're nervous. that's so cute. ♪ the first ever cover of tv dpied features the child of desi and lucille. don't it look like he is floating in a sea of marg rin. they sold the publication for $3 billion. billion with a b. today the heir to that tv guide fortune does this as a ph ilantropist and a watering can and puffing can. last month they added walrus cam live from alaska. i warn you if you start to watch it, you may require an intervention. i did today. it can be a strongly hypnotic place. we have some strangely alaska coming up. stay with us. it's really good. that's ahead. i ta morning for my frequent heartburn. because it gives me... zero heartburn! prilosec otc. the number 1 doctor-recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 9 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. ♪ we will rock you anthem ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ call 1-800-royal caribbean or your travel agent today ♪ ♪ ♪ (charge music) you wouldn't hire an organist without hearing them first. charge! so why would you invest without checking brokercheck? check your broker with brokercheck. bring us your aching... and sleep deprived. bring us those who want to feel well rested and ready to enjoy the morning ahead. aleve pm. the first to combine a sleep aid... plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. for pain relief that can last until the am. so you... you... and you can be a morning person again. aleve pm for a better am. now available with an easy open cap. sometimes the states get cooky and then speaking it's not that surprising that some go a little nuts. louisiana you voters voted that they will keep on the books the state's law. it's illegal to ban sodomy in the country and has been for a long time. louisiana legislature likes the sodomy laws so they decided to keep it regardless of the supreme court and all of that. another example is a big long segment on the show on why it is in bars in utah they used to have to serve you in bottles instead of letting someone pour the booze for you. they do not do that anymore, but have laws on who is allowed to touch liquor and who is allowed to see other people touching it. republicans are trying to pass a law that would deny the marriage licenses to interracial couples if they wanted to like they used to. people that were deknownied a license have been screaming blood de murder and going back where they got to decide who was allowed to get married or not based on the own religious views. the legislature vetoed it and putting it into law. we have been watching it for the past few days and it was in the docket and twice last week and again tonight. at the did not take it up again tonight before the session was closed. it's back on tomorrow. north carolina may take the plunge. north carolina local officials is can say no i won't marry you because you're a jew and that's against or you're black and i am white. that's my religious belief. that change in the law is still on deck. we will keep on watching it. even as we keep on watching that there's a new contend er that catches louisiana governor. this is kansas governor and he is known for blowing up the state's finances and blowing up the budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. it keeps on getting the credit rating down and having to furlough state employeeing and school districts had to shut down early because they ran out of money and could not keep the public schools opened through the end of the school year. in the mists of that crisis that sam brown created and it's now a crisis sam brown has still found time to be shocking and very ambitious in a whole new way. it was the justy and how they wants them to rule on a face. there's a case before the kansas court and this new bill says that unless they rule the way in the case he will abolish the kansas court system. he will do the whole thing unless they rule the way that he wants them to in this one case. now, we mentioned this a couple of weeks ago and i was so shocked to hear that it excited. i mentioned it as like dad, do you believe that some legislatures somewhere is considering something outrageous. never in my wild dreams would i pass and law. it passed and sam is fracking signing it. it's law. it became law of kansas and sam brown. if you rule this way, i will defund the entire court system. enjoy the independence. amazing. between that and the way that kansas republicans blue up. the unlikely state of kansas is the most radical state in the country. wait there's more. sam brown took it one step further today. no hillary clinton last week made news when all states should register. everybody should just be reng administer -- she wants early voting. that would be a mitch simplier system than what we have now. it would put millions of people on the polls. candidates are scott walker and john and chris christie from new jersey have reacted and said that it would be absurd to make it that easy. she just wants an opportunity to create greater acts of voter fraud around the community. >> hillary clinton mentioned you and saying that you're trying to make it hard er for people to vote. what is your reaction to that? >> she does not know what she is talking about. i do not want to expand it and expand fraud. maybe that's what she wants to do. i don't want to do that. maybe she took some questions some places and learned some things, she would not make ridiculous statements. >> it's the idea that there's a lot of collection fraud. >> i guess that she has never been to new jersey. >> it's true that it's known for having a ton of corruption among it's politicians. new jersey is not known for wide spread er fraud. no state is. one of the leading voices of the wright and saying that there's a ton of voter fraud is the secretary of the state chris coback. he has some of the strict er voting rules in the country and all based on that there's massive voter fraud and that elections are being stolen all of the time with huge amounts of voter fraud. the explanation on the prisons and the voters is that local prosecute ers will not prosecute people even though that there's a ton of it because they're all in on it or something. chris kobach has champion voting because he knows that there's tons and tons of voter fraud, he cannot get people to arrest people and charge them and put them on trial for the things that he knows he is doing. sam brown back fixed that and let the includecrusading secretary of the state bring them. he has not been able to persuade them to bring the voter fraud cases that he knows about. so now kansas governor says that chris can bring them himself. he can be the prosecute er and end the run around that part of the process which would be the most radical thing being done in the state now if it were not. either way sam gets the record but the only competition is himself. joining us now is the political report er for the star. thanks so much for being here. >> great to be here rachel. >> i think that outside ers or one outsider over here marbles at the changes under governor brown back and the positions. how does it feel in kansas. how is this being received in kansas? >> well many many moderate kansas republicans are agast at what is going on. we may compete with north carolina or south carolina for the most conservative state in the country and maybe louisiana. there's no question that kansas has moved the furthest from the center right where it was decades to this very far ride and conservative posture and others. you see that in the legislature and that's wrestling as you speak and spending and the bills that the governor signed about the courts that you talked about and the law all reflect a very conservative and remember that kansas made the headlines for limiting the welfare for $25 a day at the atm machine. now, they have changed that because they realized that it might violate the law. it's part of a pattern in this state to be very very conservative and today was just the latest example of that. >> the thing that is striking to me is that it's not just that it's conservative. for a lack of a better term it's waxy. the idea of defunding the whole court system unless the georges rule in a specific way on a special case. i don't -- maybe that's conservative but it seems like just a very radical and revolutional take to the state government. >> it's meant to send a signal. it's not about just this case. they're trying to send a signal this they should not rule against it when they come to funding against the state's schools. that's at the crocks of the budget in the state of kansas. the supreme court is aggressive in telling lawmakers that you have to spend more on schools in this state. the election bill is about sending a signal. it's not about voter prowl. it's about the voter suppression and they believe that. it's about sending a signal to voters that if you think that you're not registered property you should stay away there the polls because you may net prosecuted. they will pick the cases and send the messages and we will see if it impacts the turn out. not only in kansas but across the country. we're seeing it play out here. >> it's amazing. kansas has a very deep history of cadradicalism, in the first 20th century they were seemed a rat i can radical and now it's different. great to have you here tonight. >> you bet. we have two heads of alaska. one is adorable and the other one is die ploebl. stay with us. and then there's a purina standard. i make it and i feed my dog beneful. i feel proud because i know that i helped make that bag of dog food sitting on that shelf. song: rachel platten "fight song" ♪ two million, four hundred thirty-four thousand three hundred eleven people in this city. and only one me. ♪ i'll take those odds. ♪ be unstoppable. the all-new 2015 ford edge. i like my seafood like i like my vacations: tropical. and during red lobster's island escape, three new tropical dishes take me straight to the islands. so i'm diving fork-first into the lobster and shrimp in paradise, with panko-crusted lobster tail and jumbo shrimp in captain morgan barbecue glaze. or the ultimate island seafood feast, with tender crab wood-grilled lobster and two island-inspired flavors of jumbo shrimp. because a summer without tropical flavors might as well be winter. this escape is too good to miss so...don't. at chase, we celebrate small businesses every day through programs like mission main street grants. last years' grant recipients are achieving amazing things. carving a name for myself and creating local jobs. creating more programs for these little bookworms. bringing a taste of louisiana to the world. at chase, we're proud to support our grant recipients and small businesses like yours. so you can take the next big step. a moose and her two calves and a lawn sprinkler which makes them all very happy. the lady who taped this in her front yard told a local nbc affiliate that she saw the moose and the calves in the neighborhood. she thought they looked hot, so she turned on her sprinklers for them, and it looks like frankly, they really really really appreciate t if you go to youtube and type in moose and sprinkler, you will find that it's not just that lady. it happens a lot. there's a different moose family enjoying a different sprinkler in 2011. and this not cavorting, just enjoying the water with stillness. moose using technology. it's like a moose bidet, it's adorable. but there's another thing that's like a horror movie. in the same way that a horror movie is horrible and something you can't stop watching it is amazing, and we have pictures. that's coming up next. stay with us. tea, why did a panel of 11 automotive experts name the volkswagen golf motor trend's 2015 car of the year? we'll give you four good reasons. the volkswagen golf. starting at $19,295, there's an award-winning golf for everyone. so this is just a quick update so that you know this happened today. it's not getting a lot of attention because it's being done behind closed doors and nobody's allowed to cover it, but this is going on. the washington post bureau chief was put before an iranian court again today. they arrested him last summer and accused him of being a spy. he's now having some kind of trial, but the courtroom is closed to the public and to the press. his mother and his wife have both gone to tehran to try to see him, to try to attend the proceedings, but they will not let them into the courtroom. his first day in court was a reading of the charges against him. that was a few weeks ago. today all we know is that he was back in court. he was in court for three hours apparently. one iranian news outlet reported that he defended himself in english and that his remarks were translated for the judge. but that's all we know. that's all we are allowed to know. washington post bureau chief in iran having a nightmare trial behind closed doors. no date yet for his next hearing. no actual defense being mounted for him. no allowed press coverage. no information, no way it's safe to hope that they are every going to let him out of there. i wish i could tell you more, but that's all we know right now by design. keep him in your thoughts ♪ ♪ when you're living with diabetes steady is exciting. only glucerna has carbsteady clinically proven to help minimize blood sugar spikes. so you stay steady ahead. put your hand over your heart. is it beating? good! then my nutrition heart health mix is for you. it's a wholesome blend of peanuts, pecans and other delicious nuts specially mixed for people with hearts. planters. nutrition starts with nut. get fast-acting, long-lasting relief from heartburn with it neutralizes stomach acid and is the only product that forms a protective barrier that helps keep stomach acid in the stomach where it belongs. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. try gaviscon®. there's some facts about seaworld we'd like you to know. we don't collect killer whales from the wild. and haven't for 35 years. with the hightest standard of animal care in the world, our whales are healthy. they're thriving. i wouldn't work here if they weren't. and government research shows they live just as long as whales in the wild. caring for these whales, we have a great responsibility to get that right. and we take it very seriously. because we love them. and we know you love them too. shopping online... ...is as easy as it gets. wouldn't it be great if hiring plumbers carpenters and even piano tuners... were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. start shopping online... ...from a list of top rated providers. visit angieslist.com today. so we gave you something lovely out of alaska a few minutes ago in the show. a local moose family straight up frolicking in a sprinkler, having a good, moose family time. baby moose playing in sprinklers you're welcome. thus fortified, however, lettes consider another thing happening in alaska right now. this is the facebook page for the alaska fish and game. it is a great resource if you didn't feel ready for the dipped net salmon fishing derby. they have you covered with a four-part series on the subject. they also have psas. make the right call. do not touch orphaned wildlife. listen bucko, there's probably animal parents you don't see, you don't want to end up on the business end of a mama. this new information from them is so important. quote, this past week. the alaska fish and game received messages about arctic lamb fry. it's like an ehleel, but it's not an eel. born in freshwater and they make their way to the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn. and now we have reports of these fish falling from the skies. it's raining lampries. go outside, find a lampry in your yard sounds funny until you see their face. ah! until you see them right up close. this is their face! this is what has been raining down from the skies in alaska. this is the face of death from above. i would rather a shark fall from the sky than one of these tapeworm suckers. it's apparently seagulls' fault? maybe it turns around and looks at them with that terrifying face and the gull drops it on your lawn. that's probably why arctic lampreys have been turning up on people's lawns. pure nightmare fuel! don't look up, little

Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20130226

the lines geographically. here are the numbers -- we want to hear from federal employees only in and outside of washington d.c., your take on sequester. also send us a tweet, twitter.com @cspanwj. this morning, here is the "new york post with the breakdown of what this administration is warning on sequester and the impact on federal employees. scare tactics, being $85 billion in sequester cuts would be bought by consumers, home buyers, and even some taxpayers filing paper returns. -- there is a breakdown of the federal employees that are impacted inside of washington and outside across the country. we want to hear from them only this morning to get their take on sequestration. let's go to sandra in georgia, what do you do? caller: good morning. i work for the department of defense. this is huge for me. specifically i work in the office of soldiers council. we represent soldiers that the army is looking to put out of the military. this is a monumental for me. i am proud of federal worker. we worked extremely hard. my dismay is that you have some folks in washington that are putting out these on for statements that federal workers are lazy, overpaid. we have not had a raise in two years. we all sacrificed tremendously. it is unconscionable to me that folks in washington cannot get this thing solved. it is a darn shame. there is an undercurrent of folks that will not be happy until a hard-working folks are down to eating kibbles n bits. host: who is telling you in your agency about sequester? what are they telling you specifically that may impact you personally? caller: we get memorandum that are coming down from the undersecretary of the army. that is mr. ashton carter. he sent out a couple of memos. up until this point, it has been the same dialogue, we do not know anything, which i do not understand. i think folks do know what they are going to do. our understanding is that agencies have the discretion to determine who will be exempt. in other words, agencies are going to be sending out information to say, these folks should be exempt, but my understanding is that it will come from the high levels, probably the secretary of the army, to make the determination about will be exempt. until i see it in writing, i do not tend to believe it that my position is exempt. right now, i am making steps to get out of dod. i try to get to another agency that by law is not part of the sequester. host: do you think that you might be furloughed? tallest how that might work. -- tell us how that might work. caller: i think i might be. they are telling us, one day a week, about 22 days of reduced pay. i have not even done the math. i'm afraid to do the math. i'm fortunate that i have just myself to support. there are other people at much lower grades and people trying to support families and keep households running. there are a lot of folks that do not make the money that people think they make. they are fortunate they have a job, but we have folks -- those people need their money. host: 4 thus -- for those outside of washington, can you explain the grades? caller: i am a nine. that is fairly solid money in this region. when i go to the washington area, that would be increased because of the cost of living. it costs more to live in washington. the lower the grade, typically the less money and make. it is also based on geographic spread -- geographics. a three in georgia makes less than a 3 in washington. cola is based on cost of living. the pay cuts that i'm talking about, we have not had a raise in two years. host: how high does the grading in kodak's -- grading go? caller: it goes up until 10. the next level would be 11 for me. host: how long have you been working for the federal government? caller: since march 2008. five years this coming march. i love working for the government. that is why i left the private- sector because i like the idea of working, being a public servant, as opposed to working in the corporate sector, which is driven by profits. very different. to sandra, talking off -- a federal employee in georgia. we're waiting for more employees to call in. we're talking to federal employees only. we have divided the lines geographically. we want to hear from you, inside washington, outside of washington. sandra is from florida -- from georgia. the sequester, is that all that is the talk in your office? caller: i have friends in other agencies, this is a hot topic. this is going to impact us, all of us. host: is that you're getting your news, through twitter? caller: no, not through twitter. i am a news junkie. i get mind from c-span, the most unbiased source out there. i can remember my parents watching c-span. i hated it. i'm like, what are they watching? now i'm like, oh god, i'm turning into my parents. they used to have it on every morning. that was in the days of brian lamb. i appreciate you guys. host: i want to hear from federal employes only this morning. give us your take on what is happening with your job, your agency, mitch in south carolina, go ahead. caller: i am a gs 12, step 8. i am a civil engineer working for the air force. host: what have you heard? caller: about the same as the lady that was just talking. i come in every morning, and you hear people in the break room talking about that. i have not seen any e-mails, but i believe my boss may have some e-mails. in our weekly meetings, they are saying, hold on. host: do you think for job is safe? caller: i think. -- think so. i honestly believe we should do the sequestration. i worked for the government for eight years now. i see a lot of waste. i think we are over -- what is the word -- we have too many people here to do the work that we have. host: have you heard that the most redundant positions, those lower-level employees, that those are the ones that would be furloughed or subject to a hiring freeze? caller: no, i think that would go across the board. it would hit everybody, going from a lower levels to the higher levels. i would be one of the higher ones. really, if it happens, so be it. i will be taking a vacation. host: one day a week? caller: that is what i hear, how that would start. host: you are a civil engineer for the army in south carolina. is there an army base there? caller: there is an air force base here. i work on the old naval weapons station. it is kind of -- it is not right on the air force base, but it is close to it. host: can you explain that a little bit? caller: i am in the public works office at the base. i deal with mortar and a sore issues -- sewer issues, waiting for contracts to redo some were lines that have been in place since the 1940's. host: thank you, mitch. the baltimore sun has this on its front page -- the baltimore sun reporting that checks will go out, but if you have a claim or you need to get on the farm with the social security worker, there could be delays. we will take phone calls from a federal employees only this morning, getting your take on sequester. first, neild joins us, a staff writer for a "roll call." we just heard from two federal employees about what they are hearing. tell everybody that is watching, is anybody talking to each other in washington? guest: it is good to be with you. it sure does not sound like it. i have been listening in on the phone to the previous two callers who are federal employes, both working at military installations, and you know, they may not be pleased to hear, nor will most of your audience, but at this moment, the senate is gearing up in the next couple of days to have a couple of competing test votes on sequester-related legislation. one proposal is from democrats, one proposal from republicans, but we are hearing that neither one of those proposals has any chance of passing relief. -- passing really. there is not met -- much action from the house of representatives at this juncture. host: neils, there is report in the house gop is drafting a plan to give president obama disk -- discretion on these cuts. guest: right, we have heard the same from senate republicans. the argument from republicans, with this discretion matter, which has been floating around over the last week or two, is to say that the administration has been saying that the way the law was worded to set up a sequestration, they have a very limited flexibility in how they can implement it. they have to take furloughs in lots of places that would seem to be mission critical. secretary lahood is talking about shutting down air traffic control towers at smaller airports there will be long waits at psa -- at tsa with fewer screeners. what republicans in both chambers are trying to do is perhaps come up with some way to be able to give the administration more flexibility, which is also perhaps politically useful, because there is this whole notion of firing first, where they put cuts in affect and tout cuts in places where people will feel them. there was some reporting last night about people in immigration detention centers perhaps being let out because there are not enough people from the immigration service to be able to keep them there. what the republican plan would attempt to, though the white house were feuds that it would be actually useful, is to prevent that sort of -- refutes that it would be useful, is to prevent that having to happen in areas that make -- that make it an obvious problem. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers who is asking -- how would sequester impact capitol hill? guest: well, there is an interesting link to that. we had this debate a couple of weeks ago. it recurs every once in awhile, about congressional pay. also the pay of the president. there is a law -- it would be unconstitutional to change, to alter the pay of members of congress, and less on election has intervened. the expectation is that the furloughs would not apply to members of congress. certainly, we are looking at, whether it is furloughs are budget cuts or all sorts of service cutbacks, the internal operations in congress would be altered, and folks in legislative branches and ages -- agencies, like the library of congress and other support offices all around the capital, are bracing for what the effect might be on them. it even affects things perhaps like doorkeepers and other support personnel. there are also questions on capitol hill, like everywhere else, about how it will affect contracts. do you services that are provided to the capital that provided in the same way? these are questions we do not know the answer to. there has been some reporting in some detail about that. just like everywhere else, as the two colors on a just before me -- callers on just before me, there is a lot of uncertainty about how this will be implemented starting on friday. host: thank you for your time this morning. as neils was talking about, three days to go until these forced spending cuts going to effected march 1 is the deadline. the baltimore sun that light -- have line -- headline -- president obama will travel to newport news, virginia today. we will have coverage at c- span.org .. he will push for his proposal to avert the automatic spending cuts. we're speaking to federal employees. ryan is in virginia, just over the bridge. you work with the cia. what are you hearing? caller: i do not work for the cia. i'm sorry. i work for the dia. there is a generation of members of the intelligence community that have been brought for developmental programs. right now, i have been hit with the agency for about three years. at the same time, they are bringing well educated, very smart young people into the community, try to change the old boys' club that once was, into the force that we absolutely need to take on the information we are able to collect worldwide. unfortunately, all of these people are paid -- as one of your previous callers mentioned -- at a relatively low level. this amounts to less than $40,000 a year, but just prior -- just prior to the cost of living adjustment. living in the alexandria area, you have to deal with extremely high costs, transportation, as well as apartment living. that is a 20% pay cut to any one of these analysts. it is a terrifying prospect. host: you work for the director of intelligence or the defense intelligence agency? and that is part of the pentagon? caller: the defense intelligence agency, we are under the dod. host: what are you hearing about your job? caller: because i am a civilian, i'm liable to be placed on furlough at least one day a week, potentially 22 days until the end of the fiscal year. unfortunately, paying my half of the rent with a roommate at $1,200 a month prior to facilities, i'm going to have many difficulties with living with another analyst, just trying to afford our rent, as well as part of any food or any other expenses. host: could you have taken a job in the private sector and made more? caller: absolutely. i got a college degree try to join the intelligence agency, because i intended to serve this country. i do not wear a uniform, but i go to work every day for the defense of this nation. host: steve, from maryland, part of the energy department. caller: i am a fairly senior person. i understand the plight of folks at lower levels. the point is i have been working for the federal government for about 32 years. i would have been fired in the first or second. if i did what the congress is doing. they do not do their basic job, which is to make a budget. make a decision. that is what is missing. host: steve -- caller: they are going about it in the worst possible way. host: do you see waste where you work? caller: of course, i see waste everywhere. that is the job of the congress. in coordination with the administration, they should identify programs which are wasteful. i have three tenants who have been on section 8 for the last 20 years. why should you continue to help people for 20 years? put them on help for five years. not forever. host: we're talking to federal employees only. just as in silver spring. where do you work? caller: i am under noaa. i am a senior staffer. i have been in natural wild -- natural resources management. all the resource agencies of the federal level, i've worked for 10 years, i worked for the park service, i worked for the fish and wildlife -- we have been seeing cuts since basically the clinton administration. i have not seen programs growing. the talk about government waste, i do not get it, because in the natural resources management agency, there is none. we're all struggling to provide services to the public. from the worker level and entry- level jobs all the way up to management, i do not see a period -- see it. it makes me angry when people talk about government waste because we are about trying to provide services to the public. maybe other agencies that do not work with natural resources have a lot more waste, but we sure do not. host: if you are furloughed and others are, what is the impact? what will they feel? caller: i do not know. i can only speak for myself and the folks i work with. host: will americans outside of your agency, the people who rely on you, will they feel the impact of sequester from furloughs from your office? caller: it is hard to say because our sister agency, the weather service, you all, every single person in the united states and the whole planet, debts of the reports from noaa data. the weather is pretty important thing for everybody is a daily routine. planning anything, most people factor the weather in. host: andre, a naval intelligence officer. good morning. caller: similar to steve, i am relatively high ranking gs15 inside the government. what is frustrating when looking at the lack of cop -- cooperation between congress, number one, we are mandated as we square our oath of office to cooperate throughout. there are always great to be policy restrictions that prevent that. at the end of the day, we ask civil servants, it is expected of us to cooperate on behalf of the taxpayers, who ultimately pay our salaries when we see our congressional oversight -- pay our salaries. when we see our congressional oversight not cooperating, it is frustrating. the moral argument is being put forth as if united states market economy operates as if our household -- as our household economies operate. when you see arguments that children, they will have $85,000 worth of debt, if you monetize that back to when we were born, that number might have been and $10,000, for instance. what to do not see is anybody knocking at our door, asking us to pay that dollar value -- that dollar some value. it does not really work. we do not have a credit card company is sending us a bill every month. host: who do you blame, congress, the administration, or both? caller: i think it is everybody's willing to bear, including us, the citizenry. at the end of the day, they represent us. we speak through our elections. they interpret what we say. that manifests itself in policy doctrine. if this comes to fruition, everybody is to blame. this is the truest instance of a scenario where elections have consequences. host: we're taking phone calls from federal employees inside and outside of washington, d.c.. let me throw this into the conversation, a letter from senator tom coburn. he sent it to omb, outlining several positions that are being solicited from the federal government for jobs. he says -- you can find this letter on our web site. tonko burnt lists the jobs -- tom coburn lists the jobs. he has several in his letter to omb. we're talking to federal employees only. we will keep taking your phone calls. first, let me give you some other headlines. your is a new york times -- albany -- all the newspapers reporting how he took on that role, more of a public role. he issued an pack warnings about the dangers of smoking, and he pushed the government into taking an aggressive stance against aids. despite his opposition to abortion, refused to use his office as a pulpit from which to preach. "the wall street journal" has a front-page piece about immigration and the dilemma republicans' base, particularly when the gramm who is running for reelection in 2014. they note that senator gramm, senator john mccain will meet with the president today to talk about immigration reform. the front page of the new york times, republicans signing a brief in support of gay marriage. 75 people have signed an amicus brief, a friend-of-the-court brief, before the supreme court takes up a california ballot initiative at baring same-sex marriage. -- there are republicans who have signed this would not previously talked about the issue, mega wittman, who supported proposition 8 originally, congresswoman lee some of florida, richard hanna of new york, stephen hadley -- back to your phone calls, sam in west point, new york, he works for the department of defense. what is your take on sequester? caller: well, there is waste in the federal government, but there is also waste in the private sector. you cannot quantify it. we have already had cut. we have had about 5-10% cuts. mostly for people who have not -- have been hired. we had contract employees, and they are now on their way out. we have not had cut since the clinton administration here. host: larry, where are you calling from? what agency do you work for? caller: i'm calling from puerto rico. the federal bureau of the provisions -- it boils down to two words for all federal employees. essential and non-essential staff. essential staff would be correctional officers. we would have to keep that. they could send secretaries home, case workers home. so you work at an ammunition depot. they would keep the security people, but they could send the secretaries home. it boils down to two words, the central and non-essential staff. i am sure they would not send air-traffic controllers home from washington dulles, or chicago, but smaller airports, they might close down. a central staff they will keep. goas in on a clinton's last around in the mid 1990's. i took my annual leave during the shutdown. they said, you better not, because you will not get paid. i got paid at the end of it. people worrying they will not get their checks, that is a bunch of malarkey. host: where are you getting this information? from the 01 b? -- the omb? caller: that came from our memo, that essentials that would be capped and non-essential staff would be sent home. host: on the sequester though. caller: i put this together. this is what they will do at federal agencies. they will keep essential staff, and non-essential staff and they will send hundred -- home. host: jack from the veterans affairs office. caller: we have a lot of waste. we have a lot of people who do not do anything. i am one of the lower ones. there are people making $80,000, $90,000. all federal employees could go through, they could cut a bunch of those jobs. congress and the senate, they have lost a reality with us regular people. they have no idea. they're all millionaires, and they still get paid. we have not had a raise in three years. they still get a pay raise. they have just lost reality with the citizens of the country. host: that is jack working for the veterans administration. i want to give you an update on what is happening on capitol hill. jack lew is getting closer to being confirmed as treasury secretary. the senate finance committee will take up his nomination today. there will likely vote yes to move that forward to the full senate. we will have live coverage at 10:00. the business section of "the new york times" is reporting that to shore up his support, jacob loo -- jack lew met with 41 senators to respond to the 738 questions for the record. on tuesday, he is good to have a backup on capitol hill. also, a program note, we will be covering a house committee examined u.s. airways and american airlines' merger. that coverage is at 10:00 a.m.. a house committee judiciary subcommittee on regulatory reform will be looking into this murder and its impact on competition. here is a full-page ad taken out by american airlines in the washington post -- they are claiming that it will bring consumers more choice. a full-page ad in the washington post ahead of today's hearing. writing in the opinion section of the wall street journal, bob corker, republican of tennessee, a ranking republican on the foreign relations committee, and jim inhofe writing together, nuclear zero offers nothing worth having. they're talking about the president's plan to reduce the u.s. nuclear -- nuclear arsenal. in "the new york times" -- talks with iran to take place in iran -- in moscow. secretary of state john kerry, promising fresh ideas on syria. those are some of the morning headlines for you. we're continuing to talk to federal employees only. we have about five minutes. robin in maryland, she works for dod. tell us your take? caller: good morning. i'm calling from an african american standpoint as a federal worker. as i was speaking to my mom, you have african-americans, having myung-bak -- young black boys in prison disproportionately. and you have a young african- american young ladies having kids, teen pregnancies, and they're raising children from cradle to grave. then you have parents who are middle-class -- a majority of us work for the federal government. that is the middle-class blacks. they were able to get an education, get a college degree, and now our jobs are being threatened. you're talking about the black community, the african-american community -- sequestration is cutting us off at the legs. also the baby boom generation, we have to take care of our parents. thank god they're not taking social security, cutting social security and medicaid, because we're now having to take care of our parents. we're paying for this high cost, the prescriptions, the medicines, taking our parents to hospitals. i'm looking at it from an african american standpoint, and we are hit very hard. host: let me ask you, who do you blame? caller: i first when the congress -- blame the congress for making it so hard for president obama to move the country forward. he won the election. get over it. it is so partisan because if you do not -- i cannot imagine constituents supporting these persons -- it is going to affect everybody. host: some facebook comments -- on twitter -- we're talking to federal employees only this morning we're going to take more phone calls from you. dial in. what is your take on sequester? what are you hearing from the government here in washington about your job and your agency and what impact it has? do you think this is not such a bad idea? we're getting your take. a program note, a fed chairman ben bernanke will be back on capitol hill. he will be talking about monetary policy. he is likely to be asked about sequester as well. look for our coverage live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3. also a house appropriations committee will be looking at impact of cuts on the defense department. we will have coverage of that. then representative candice miller, republican of michigan, will chair a hearing on border security, and we will be covering that. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. 202 c-span.org for all the details on what we are covering today -- go to c-span.org for all the details on what we are covering today. some other headlines -- the washington times this morning, the front page has this story -- >> next to that is a piece about abortion -- that is the washington times this morning. "usa today" reports on a survey done with teachers. they're not so gung-ho on guns at schools. nearly three in for educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school even able allowed to do so. -- tomorrow in washington, the supreme court will take up the voting rights act. edward bloom has the knack for finding the right -- one more for you this morning. this is the front page of the financial times -- the justice department in court with bp, asking for the maximum penalty for the gulf oil spill that happened in 2009. we have a couple of minutes. we will hear from natasha in virginia, federal contractor. what are you hearing? caller: i have an hearing that some of the contracts may be canceled. some of the funding may be decreased. furloughs may take place. we have already been warned, but of course, we will have 30 day'' notice. host: what do you do? caller: i work at the bureau of indian affairs. host: what you think the impact will be for americans? caller: washington reason, it will have an impact because some of the people work for the government or military, and i think it will affect businesses that rely on the population here. there may be a bit of the many recession in this area perhaps. host: natasha, and what you think happens march 1? have you heard about that? caller: not really. we're waiting for the word in our office. everybody is waiting patiently to see what happens. host: we're going to speak with two members of congress, and up about sequester and get their take on it. -- coming up about sequester and get their take on it. we will stick to democratic representative or to sanchez. then republicans will join us, all after this break. ♪ -- loretta sanchez. then a republican will join us, all after this break. ♪ >> you have to understand that all the founders, their primary concern, number one, numero uno, was with national security. what would they say about a company such as lockheed? i am of the opinion that based on how they acted in other instances, they would grudgingly saver a bailout of lockheed because it supplied the united states with its top fighter jets and its top reconnaissance airplanes. i think you can make an argument that they would have supported the bailout of chrysler back in the 1980's, but not the one today. what is the difference? chrysler back and made tanks. -- back then made tanks. it is interesting, when chrysler comes out of debt and repays the government loan and comes back to halt, the main way they do so is by selling off the tank division and a plan that money back into the company. >> larry schweikart will take your calls and tweets on at the founding fathers. that is at noon eastern on sunday on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to our table, loretta sanchez. sequester is our topic, as all washington is talking about it. for those federal workers we were talking to and the other viewers that are watching us, what happens march 1? guest: if we cannot rearranged this sequester law -- remember the law was passed, and it is the law of the land -- congress has the ability to push it off, like we did for january 1. we pushed the date to march 1 priebus -- march 1. it could go into effect. we could also rearrange it. for example, we could say, people within agencies hubble but more flexibility to decide where they cut -- a little bit more flexibility to decide where the cut. i am usually an optimist. for federal employees, you are really going to have to look and consider where your discretionary spending is. as much as possible, you're going to have to pull back from that for a while until we can change this law. host: what is the impact, a if eni, on the overall economy? -- if any, and the overall economy? guest: it is tough. it depends on where you are in the economy. we had elections sunday and monday in italy -- italy went through an austerity program, cuts being forced in. the people revolted because it depends on whom those cuts fall. when we look at march 1 and ask, where those cuts fall, if you are relying on headstart for preschool for your child, and all of a sudden, those funds get pulled, it is affecting directly. but only do have a place not too -- do you not have a place to send your kid, you are pushed back. flying and it is deemed that some airports may be closed because we do not a people to work the towers, you may find yourself flying into chicago to get a planned to go someplace instead of being able to go on that one daily flight that would leave from a regional airport. it depends on where you are. in the washington, d.c. area, people are incredibly concerned because in many ways, d.c. has not felt too much the impact of this recession over the last five, six, seven years. this will definitely affect this area. host: our next guest is republican from wisconsin. he put together slides that i took a look at. what will the budget look like if sequester happens? here in blue is the spending, without sequester cuts, the spending of our federal government. with sequester cuts, not much of the difference. "the wall street journal" recently wrote that it will help the economy. do you agree or disagree? guest: "the wall street journal" tends to like the fact, they are looking from a business perspective. it depends on where it falls. i would agree with most people that there are some areas we need to redo. social security, medicare, for example, those are areas that would give it a bigger impact. he is right. the discretionary piece of the budget, which is what congress fights over much of the time, has been shrinking, moving more into that money being spent in defense, and less in other areas like education, national parks, air quality. when we go to cut these pieces, it is not having this big impact on an annual basis. let's remember that when you do not give an inoculation to a child, that child may be sick more often he may be going to emergency hospitals. -- more often. he may be going to emergency hospitals. we could cut here, but we may be opening ourselves up to a higher cost across the nation, whether it is on our local governments or state governments or the private sector. host: what have you respond to what the speaker said yesterday, at a news conference yesterday. clip] >> the president says we need another tax increase to avoid the sequester. well, mr. president, and you got your tax increase. it is time to cut spending in washington. instead of using our military men and women as campaign props, if the president was serious, he would sit down with harry reid and begin to address our problems. the house has acted twice. we should not have to act the third time before the senate begins to do their work. guest: speaker boehner was the chairman of the education committee when i sat on there when i first came to the congress. he is usually a very reasonable person. i think some of that was a little bit of politics. i do not seek the president using our armed men and women as props. certainly, i think there is some gamesmanship going on by both sides the bottom line is -- and both sides could the bottom line is, speaker boehner, there are many people that want to be at the table with you and want to start to make smart cuts -- both sides. the bottom line is, speaker boehner, there are many people that want to be at the table with you and want to start making smart cuts. if we need to save defense, if we cannot cut deeply to defense, then sit down with us and decide how much from defense is really fat and waste right now, and let's figure out how we make up the rest of that money. that is called a new revenues. host: republicans have been saying, what we need from the president is entitlement reform. that is how we avoid the sequester. this is the washington post editorial -- guest: to somehow suggest that the president makes law, go back to the constitution. the legislative branch, that is where this falls. with all due respect to our speaker, i have had a very good dealings with him over the time i have been here, there are plenty of us in the middle who want to sit down and say, how can we make some of this work? he really has not called on any of us to really do that. we have been meeting. there are different groups meeting. they're talking about, or can we find, how can we find, what we do about social security? it is sort of like the president, speaker boehner, the republican leadership, the senate always try to be cordial with each other and have something in the middle, and now they're finding that they're having a hard time getting something over to us. they keep forgetting that there are many of us who for many years have been experts in many of these areas. we can find cuts. we can also find revenues. host: your part of the moderate democratic group. are you specifically open to entitlement reform as part of a deal to avoid sequestration? guest: absolutely. i have said from the beginning when the simpson-bowles cannot, where they said -- came out, where they said we have to look at defense, social security, some of these programs, taxes, i was one of the first to say, this is a blueprint. it allows us to open up the discussion. a lot of people just turned away from it. it took 18 months before people started to embrace this and say, you know what? everything has to be on the table. it is both the blue dogs, some moderate coalition members, the tuesday group, from the republican side. i think there is a group of buss core saying -- group of us saying -- look, that does not make tv shows. this is one show that lets us talk about the issues. it is often too, nats of who won the round of boxing. it discredits what many of us are trying to do. -- two minutes of who wobbled around a boxing. it discredits what many of us are trying to do. caller: i am listening to the representative and her liberalism. there is an old expression that says lies figure, but figures lie. she forgot to add that all the cabinet secretaries had an increase in their budgets. janet napolitano has had an increase in her budget. if somebody gets laid off -- i worked in the private sector until i retired -- we face danger every day in the private sector. i got laid off almost three times. i do not see anybody from the public sector climbing on my shoulder. i say, that is life. it used to it. life is tough. put 1 foot in front of the other. get a response from's the congress woman. guest: first, i will say, i am not crying. i run every two years. i have no job security if you think about that. i will say this, constitutionally government exists and is the people. it is a tool. government is the tool that people use. for people to say government is too big or too small, we should always examine what type of government we have. we should always examine where the sweet spot is and how we use government to help form of better and more perfect union. it exists constitutionally, and it is like saying i am holding a hammer in my hand and i keep hitting myself. a hammer is a tool, we just have to know how to use it wisely. i think it is great when the american public can come in and talk about this. let's talk about real issues and how we get to the sweet spot. a lot of people did not realize how often the federal government touches them every day. if you happen to get in a crash, the sake of the highway your drive it on. the air traffic controller who is helping you to get to somewhere in mississippi or alabama. the government is a good tool it will use it effectively. it is not a bad thing. certainly we tried less government along time ago. our forefathers figured out that did not work. let's make it work for us. host: some have said this is not spending cuts under sequestration. all we're doing is slowing growth. tom keller rights i wish someone would explain why it there are no actual cuts, why there needs to be furloughs. guest: one of the problems is if you have a particular contract, you are in agreement. it is very difficult to go back and say to lockheed martin or one of the companies to say we have less money, we have to go back and rearrange your contract. you say we are going to sue you. under contract law, the federal government would probably lose. a lot of programs already pre- planned in this fiscal year. some of them, unfortunately, those were doing this for us have either put in inflation or increased costs or have agreed to increase costs. so if we cannot change the contracts, then the piece where we can be more flexible is to furlough or to say to an obsolete one day a week you will not work. it will effectively be a 20% cut on your pay. that is the easiest place to go to to do this because of existing contracts and programs. >host: democrat a calller from virginia. good morning. caller: i am calling because i personally believe the republicans would like to see the sequester happen, and the reason for that is because once the economy tanks, then going into 2016 they can say the president, which they are tried to say it is his fault, but they will have a better argument for 2016 to say he failed the economy and failed to do what he wanted to do, therefore positioning themselves to have a better 2016, but i think they should tread carefully because of that hurts the economy as bad as some of the predictions are saying, i think they are not seeing what they should be doing through clear eyes, and i think it will have a much more damaging effect, and therefore the price they are born to pay the price we will pay as a country will be a lot worse than just the consequences of an election in 2016. guest: this young lady is a pre- plan are going all the way out to 2016. i have not even looked at 2016. i have a little problem with saying people are just doing this to make the president look bad. first of all, he is a lame-duck president. he is not running again. to say that somehow the economy is bad because obama was leading the white house for the democratic contender, i think it is too far away. host: does it transferred to you and your colleagues at art up again in 2413-- that are up again? guest: i do not think it does. i go home every week and talk to people. and i think people should have to stay in touch and understand what you are fighting for, that this whole source of issue -- if anything, i think this will be a savior for the speaker. a lot of people -- a lot of democrats ask me all the time, the speaker is -- i say he is not a bad guy but trapped in a situation where his own house of republicans are really battling it out. i think the american people realize that. i think it's the economy takes because of inaction in washington, d.c., that is -- the largest part of the blame will be put on the house republicans. host: about the president's style on this issue and other issues, here is "politico" -- gguest: well, to say my colleague in the senate -- what is a moderate these days? i said you were conservative when you came in. now they're tossing you under the bus because they think you are too liberal. labels, go away with that. he is thing the president is being aggressive. when the president is not aggressive, nothing gets done. then tuesday leave, mr. president, that is what the republicans -- the speaker is saying leave. if you guys do not change what is going on in the house, that we will have these things happening. that is a form of leadership, saying move this. now they're saying you are being too aggressive. you can never win in this way. if you% -- 50% criticizing and 50% happy, you are probably in the sweet spot. i would say if he has a better grasp in the senate with what is happening with colleagues, but i will tell you in the house, many of my colleagues on the republican side. report back to me to say it is crazy in there. host: boston, independent calller. caller: i would like to pick up on the point earlier that this is not a cut, a slowing of the growth of government, which is a key thing that people should really take into account. the slowing of the growth and the result of this is the sky will fall. all the services will be cut from things that are important. what about the millions of people in the federal bureaucracy that do nothing or do very little? why can't we go after their jobs? why doesn't have to affect the people that are the front lines -- does it have to affect the people that are the front lines? host: mark on twitter has a similar comment. white is the focus on the federal employee layoffs. guest: if you are contractor for the federal government, then you think your program is needed, because that is the way you are making your living. but if i stand up to say we really do not need the program any more in need to cut it, that is congress' job. it is their diet -- job to decide what works and what does not appear yen congress people need to look like they're fighting for that, but overall, over the history of time, more or less, we have been pretty much able to say we do not need typewriters anymore. now we have come into an impasse where that is unacceptable to do, for people to say no. i believe every piece of government has an opportunity to cut. every piece of our government. so if you say congress, if you do not cut this, we will do automatic cuts across everything. if we could not get together on agreement for what should really be eliminated, this is what we have received. bad: so it is not an idea then? guest: it is not a great way to do it, but it does begin to pare back the federal government, which is what the majority of the americans told us that is what they really wanted. host: republican calller and chattanooga, tennessee. good morning. caller: what do you believe the federal government's primary role is? >guest: well, certainly defense is an issue for us. certainly justice for all. certainly to regulate interstate commerce. certainly, the health and welfare of our people. again, it is dependent upon -- some people say just the fence, and they stop there. others say if we do not have a federal government figuring out some employer is making we work in a sweatshop, there has to be lost. there has to be lost. that is why we have a letter of berlin and clear yet the -- that is why we have to have laws. that is why you have three pieces supposedly checking each other. when we get over the line, the supreme court has the ability to say the law is that. a lot of people talk about the individual mandate and it was on staff -- unconstitutional. is that pretty much it is unconstitutional, but they still said we could do it. there are all these checks and balances going on all the time. if you have a contract dispute, something going on, where are you going to go? are we not want to have any judiciary? at no judges to help us with this? no federal prosecutors? i think there is always a question of what this developer of you at the federal government. again, government is a tool. we should always question what should the federal government be doing, what should the state be doing at the local level? we limit the department of education and department of energy? they have made things worse since they were created. caller: the obama administration ihas continued quantitative easing and has not increased in the bank lending. that is a problem. we have bill gross from him co claiming we are in a self-consuming fire storm. the problem is with retirement. h r 129 would return to predict spending act. i was wondering if you would co- sponsor that? that is the classical -- glass- steagal. 85 billion per month to bail out banks. guest: thank you for the call. i would tell you that before i came to the congress, i was a financial analyst, financial adviser. i was in the bond market and putting together instruments of credits. i would tell you that i am a co- sponsor of the classicglass-stel aact. egal act. i certainly disagree with many of the things that happened. at someone who voted against park. -- tarp. i have had many people tell me that is wrong. there is a lot of congress people who do not have the background. i remember in the boat, it did not pass on tuesday but passed on friday morning. i voted the first time when it did not pass. the stock market will go down you have to test this. we did not pass it. the stock market went down. then we came back friday morning and passed it, and the stock market went down and everything was in flux all the time for wyatt. you know, i did not get scared by that. i definitely believe separation between commercial and investing things is probably a good thing for the united states. >> the senate banking committee will hear from ben bernanke about monetary policy at 10:00 eastern time. look for live coverage on c-span 3. bob next. democratic calller. caller: my question is this, i am a retired food inspector. i heard on television the department of agriculture would be affected to the point that a lot of inspectors will not be working. how are these things going to be able to produce inspector content without inspectors? i think that will create a big problem. the inspectors would be required to bring them out of the plant. it would not be government inspected. >guest: thank you for that. thank you for making people understand what federal workers do. we had a couple calls where these people do nothing. again, go back to every day you are affected by the federal government. you go to the store and pick up your ground beef. you just assume that it is good. who we have? we have food inspectors, because what we find out is when we do not have enough people on the line looking out for your health but there are some bad players in the market. in europe they are grinding horse meat. hopefully we're not doing that here, but the food coloring, that they are taking the oldest fleets and grinding it up and putting red food coloring. you look at that and say it is ground beef. host: we are going to be talking about the impact of sequestration on agricultural department as part of our series looking at the different agencies. one last quick, on call if we can. robert in maryland. independent calller. caller: good morning. there have been seven times in our u.s. history where we have had economic holocausts because the people who have money have always got access to policies in washington. right now the five big is big in the united states are setting on nine trillion dollars. you try to refine the money out of washington area during the 1890's depression, the 1920's depression. now the current economic problems. each time these greedy people got access to our politicians, freed the money, and then the economic chaos started. >host: we will leave it there because we are running out of time. guest: certainly money is incredibly influential in politics. my own former treasurer of california said monday is the mother's milk of politics. certainly as the democrats, i am pretty upset about the fact that the supreme court has ruled under united that corporations are entities and can sell money, so i think there is way too much money. it is very difficult to run these days. honestly, it is very difficult. that having been said, if people wake up and understand what is going on and there are more shows like this where we get a chance to come, and people begin to say we have had enough with the scare tactics, we have had enough with the name calling, and really listen to the people trying to make change, who are really trying to make it right, who are trying to say government is a good thing, and we have to analyze where it is involved, but we should be doing this, then i think americans will go back to believing in their governments. they will keep politicians in check, and it will certainly do something about the massive amount of money. that is one of the biggest problems. the money is just -- it comes in waves, especially against people who are not all the way to the left or right. sanchez,ngresswoman thank you. coming up next we will talk to reid ribble. >> in the headlines this morning with the political standoff over spending set to trigger major cuts starting friday, economists surveyed by the associated press say the impact is the biggest drag right now on the economy and could persist well into 2013. 23 of the 37 economists who responded to the survey said the paralysis in washington is a significant factor in slowing the economy. a deeply divided senate is moving toward the boat on president obama is choice for the defense department. with the former senator on track to win the confirmation. 12 days after republicans stalled the nation, they were slated to vote on proceeding with this election. is that it comes in at 10:00. it will be live on c-span 2. trans union says there has been a seasonal spike on those americans who have fallen behind on auto payments. the late payment rate on auto loans declined on an annual basis and have remained near the low was pointed over a decade. finally, investors are worried about the income -- the outcome of italy's elections. on monday the stocks have the worst drop in more than three months. the dow fell 260 points. the biggest drop since november 7. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> on route 66 people were travelling, either traveling looking for a job, maybe on their way to the grand canyon. so it first, route 66 was just a way to get somewhere. your destination was in california. later on, after this date pits started walking up and a tourist traps and attractions in the cafes and motels and the trading posts, when those things started springing up, it became like a big and use it -- amusement park. it became the destination. it was more like let's go down route 66. all the fun stuff is there. like a big, long amusement park. >> get your kicks on route 66 in new mexico. one of the things you will see looks atend as the scspan life in albuquerque. host: congressman reid ribble is a republican in wisconsin and member of the budget committee. that begin with your budget committee experience. we heard from calller earlier. these are not cut under sequestration. you are just slowing the growth. could you explain the difference? guest: if you look at defense spending, there is a reduction in the first year, and that it turns back up and the rate of growth continues at the same rate prior to sequestration, but starting with a lower starting point. there are reductions in the rate of growth. every year it is like an automatic right to refund that the programs. we do not go to zero. we start of the previous line and build from then. what this does is it retards that a bit and slows it down. host: you put together these slides. what will the budget look like it sequester happens? there seems to be very little bit of a difference between with or without sequester. guest: very modest. you're looking at spending going back to years ago. this is not the catastrophe everyone says it is. one caveat to that. if you are the employee tickets furloughed, it this impacts your family, it is a real problem, and i recognize that concern. however, as that fiduciaries of the tax payer dollars, we have to recognize this country is over 16 trillion in debt, and we have to begin to address it and fix it. important for step. host: budget cut seen as a risk to grow in the u.s. economy. h guest: if you take it from that perspective, it could seem like a slowing. there is a lot of reasons for the stagnant growth. there are a lot of things that need to be fixed. until we can get our congress and the president of the united states to work together and resolve of friction point, we will continue to have slow growth. if you look at the slide that you had up, it shows the sequestered as it relates to the overall economy. there is a tiny red line. that is the sequestered in relationship to the u.s. economy. >> during an economic recovery, is it bad timing to go ahead with a sequestered? guest: do not think it is. i think it is probably be appropriate time. instead of a husband and wife sitting at the dining room table deciding whether there will buy a new car this year. the white says we really cannot afford to buy a new car. the husband says we have to buy this car because someone at general motors will lose their jobs if we do not. if we continue to lose -- use the logic that we restrained government at all because you will lose jobs if you do not, then why don't we have everyone send in all their money. host: you do not believe then that sequestration is a bad thing, and should it be reversed? if it goes through, should they try to undo it? guest: no, they should not. i put a bill in the hopper loss like that would allow transfer of our hunt ended ahead of spirit above where sequestration and went wrong is the cuts go across every single line item in every agency budget. there is no availability for the secretary of aquaculture to prioritize. my bill basically allows each agency head to watch the pipeline -- the top line # establish and watch the funds in the way that is most appropriate. they know where the waste is and what are lower and higher priorities and the ways to manage their agencies effectively. i put it in the hopper last night. we attend code as sponsors ride out of the bat. it will get some attention. host: someone on twitter wrote when my boss tells me to cut, it's a reduction year over year to spending. not a decrease from what i requested for in the budget. caller: i hope sequester goes through, because i cannot see them cutting the budget in any way, shape, or form. from what i understand, there will be an increase. it is going up $15 billion in spending for the entire year. i would like to know why there has not been a budget in four years. what is wrong with harry reid that he could not get along with a house and set up a budget for them so you could go to congress and have a budget? i cannot believe after four years there has not been one. guest: it is really surprising. congressman jim cooper wrote a piece of legislation, no budget, no pay. it required the congress to pass a budget resolution. the set and house agreed on it and did the appropriation bills on time. it the senate did not do that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done it. -- if the that it did not do that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done. i was a sponsor of that bill. within minutes of having that legislation passed, harry reid came to the podium and said this year the senate will pass a budget. it is a critical step forward. at this point we will be able to see what a separate report -- priorities are, and hopefully we will be able to pull those documents together and have this country work on a budget for work, work with inside the budget framework so we can control the rampant growth of government. >host: an individual on twitter tes, why does savings pay less than inflation rate? guest: historically interest rates on federal debt have run between 4.5-5.5%. today it is 1.2%, 1.25%. if interest rates would move back up to historical levels, the cost of interest to the u.s. treasury would go over $800 billion. it would be a catastrophe. budget planryan's calls for closing loopholes. now the republicans are against closing loopholes. guest: we are not against closing loopholes. our budget this year will do the exact same thing. we will close loopholes and take the savings and reduce tax rates for every single business in the country. what the president wants to do is continue to pick winners and losers that is a non-starter for us. we believe we need national, total, and complete tax reform, and that is what we will be working on. host: the shell on twitter, your bill sounds like common sense. -- michelle on twitter, your build sound like common sense. guest: right now there is the blame game. republicans in the house blaming democrats and the president. it is this blame game that drive the american people crazy. you want to know whose fault this is? it is my fault. i voted for this. we voted for it. it is the president's fault, because he signed it. we all should embrace this to get our fiscal house in order. i think it is common sense, and i think that is what the american people want and expect from our leaders. here is why republicans might oppose it. it gives the administration too much power. what happens if they picked off a republican district and try to cut more to make a political statement? they are fearful of that. my response is that it's ok. if they do it, it is visible because it was their choice. i think democrats would maybe oppose it, because then it would actually placed the blame on the president for the choices they make. host: a headline about gop drafting plans to give the president power. that is your bill. you are working with leadership on this? guest: leadership got yesterday. we're starting to move forward. the senate has a similar bill. there is one geared specifically toward giving the authority to defense. it is a good idea for the secretary of defense, it is a good idea for senator bill sack. -- villsack. host: democratic calller. caller: i wanted to know why the politicians cannot take a five- year pay freeze and not get any more parks or whatever? just close all the loopholes. if politicians show up for work offhow for two hours to show their tie, they should get paid by the hour. guest: i will talk a little bit about pay. i came in as a freshman member in 2010. i am entering a third year. this is the third consecutive year. i am advocating removing the pension programs for members of congress. i have offered several different term-limit bills to restrict careers for members of congress. i believe we should put more requirements and members of congress to do their job. that is why i co-sponsored on a the fall, no budget, no pay proposal. we're hoping we can get back this year so we can require congress to do the job the american people expect them to do. host: budget cuts would hit congress, but not members. why is that? guest: that is not true. our budgets get hit the same light. they have been frozen for three years. -- our budgets get hit the same way. there is an impact directly. i think is appropriate that we will say to federal agencies and discretionary portions of the budget that everyone else has to tighten up and we also have to do it. i agree with that. host: jocelyn, independent calller. caller: my question, first of all, i would like to state my husband is a decorated naval veteran. he served our country for six years honorably. he has been working for five years in connecticut for the department of navy. we serve our country and do not take much money. we make about 90,000 per year. we're talking about a 20% pay decrease, about $900 per month. that is devastating. we're talking about a devastating. i have two small children. i want your pledge on national television that you and every other member of congress, but specifically you will take a 20% pay cut in your pay. my husband has also had a pay freeze for three years, has received no additional money for three years, even though health care has gone up. i want you as the secretary of defense has pledged, that you will take a 20% pay cut, as will every member of congress, including the president, before you hit an hon. veteran who is disabled, who served his country for less than 100,000 per year and has a family to feed. guest: thank your husband for his service and think you to your children and you for the sacrifices you have made. this is where the rubber hits the road in this discussion. that is why i mentioned it earlier. it is a problem if you are one of the families that will be hit with a sequester. this is one of the reasons why my legislation this morning is so critical. it would give the secretary of defense, rather than this every single line item in the budget has to be cut by roughly 7.3%, it would give the secretary of defense the ability to manage it and say there are lower priority problems in defense. we will not spend it here. instead we will preserve wages there. the sequestered itself and how it was done is not how you would manage anything. regarding members of congress, i cannot make a pledge for anything, because the constitution does not allow us to change our pay. i can only vote to change the next congress pay. i hear exactly what you say. i have the very same concerns that you have. i am trying to get the fix in place so it does not have to happen. thank you for your families service. -- famiy's service. host: you say you have 10 echoed the sponsors' right off the bat. you need a lot more than that. -- 10 co-sponsors right off the bat. guest: there are couple of things that have to change. we can let the sequestered go through and immediately followed with a continuing resolution. this is the methodology we fund the government with. a continuing resolution is what we do by march 27. we can move that up to next week. we can do it this week, prior to sequestration taking place, which would be my preference. the uncertainty would disappear. host: what have you heard about this bill? guest: i have not heard anything. i will talk with the speaker immediately after this. we have our regular conference meeting where i will presented to the conference. there have been a lot of conversations and different ideas. like i said, there is pushed back for republicans and democrats. if something is common sense as this, every single american gets it. i am hoping common sense will prevail. host: to win next in maryland. -- joann next in maryland. caller: this is something i think that is really important. sir, i find you disingenuous. republicans are willing to sacrifice programs like head start, meals on wheels, a number of poverty programs, tax breaks for the rich. that is what it really comes down to. as far as people losing their jobs, a federal employes are people, too. they have families and have to feed their children. secondly, there is a lot of contractors. those contractors are often at small businesses, very small businesses. they are going to be cut. when they lose their federal contracts, they will not be able to feed their children either. guest: think you for your comments. i apologize for you finding week disingenuous. -- thank you. these cuts will roll back federal spending to a point just three years ago. in fact, it could make the argument we were underfunding, food stamps for example. food stamps jumped from 53 billion to 76 billion, even though simultaneously unemployment went from 10.1 percent down to 7.7%. food stamps and these programs for the needy, the truly needy continue to rise. i am not opposed to having these types of social safety net available for the truly poor. we have to be careful of those making sure the truly poor are protected and do not get squeezed out by other priorities in the country that -- that might be less important. what we're trying to do is make sure the financial resources available to the people that have a need is actually there and those people who are able to support and sustain themselves do not get the benefit any longer. host: savannah, georgia. republican calller. caller: i do not understand why obama who says i inherited this debt and this debt, but he has doubled the debt from 7000 to 14,000 by redoing the oval office. that office has been that way for 40-50 years, and he goes to change everything in it. i am a military spouse. my husband is deployed. you are talking about cutting the military? our men, our husbands, wives are over there fighting for our freedoms, and the government is treating them like they do not even matter. you are just another person we pay. and every other country is building over -- building up their military. guest: think you for your comments, and thank you for your family service. regarding your husband service, his pay is protected. service, hisnd's pay is protected. right now we are spending six times more than the next closest nation on defense. at some point there has to be a slowing down of how we're spending money to defend the country. we cannot sustain this. this is particularly true in the light of the fact of the ever- growing social safety net for the senior programs, primarily medicare and social security. 10,000 americans every single day are entering those programs. 10,000 every single day. that is scheduled to go on for more than a decade. as the baby boom generation goes through, that amount of money will begin to compress what we can do on the discretionary side. just in the past two years, discretionary spending in this country, when i first came it was 41.5%, today just over 38% because the other programs have continued to grow. they are squeezing out essential programs that we all value and feel that are important. this is why the american people, along with members of congress, have to begin the long, a typical conversation about how do we protect our seniors, children, and grandchildren? host: 80 billion is a nice cut, but how will we get to 1.2 trillion? guest: 1.2 trillion comes from the decade-long cut of sequestration. it is a significant reduction in the rate of growth. i would like for you to look back at some of the slides i brought. when you look at this, it you can see federal spending with and without the sequester. the gap between the lines is the cumulative amount of 1.2 trillion dollars. some of that savings coming from infrastructure. -- coming from interest. still a modest reduction. government spending continues to grow each and every year. for our friends and family serving diligently and our military and country bravely, i want you to know we are concerned about that, and we are aware of it, but we have to measure this with all of our priorities as well. host: democratic calller in wisconsin. caller: good morning. youmedicare, why can't instead of raising the age, let people buy in at 55, and then go back to when hundred approximately when they are 55 and have more money into medicare, and it would help the small businesses that are insuring the older people? guest: that is a great idea. thank you for calling from wisconsin. i hope it is not snowing there today. those are the types of ideas we need to get on the table and start talking about. we recognize the medicare program will continue to grow based sheer demographics of the country aging. there are fewer pleasers -- fewer workers replacing those that are retiring. ideas like yours should have a hearing and voice in the halls of congress, and i really appreciate you coming up with suggestions like these, because these are the types of debates that have to happen. thank you for waiting in this morning. host: ohio on the line for republicans. philip. >caller: my question is if the sequestered is only a decrease in the increase of the budget, how can we have of you were calling to say her husband will have a 20% decrease in the wages because of the sequestered? how could the president go out and talk about all of the jobs that will be lost because of the sequestered? there is no difference. we are operating the same today as tomorrow, except the increase will be less. am i wrong in my perception of what is going on? guest: you are about 90 percent correct. in the first year, particularly on the defense side, and this was the point of the call earlier with a husband in the navy, there is an actual reduction on the defense side. it goes down for the first year. there will be some feeling there. you cannot make any type of decision or cuts in this country without affecting somebody. in the past four years there has been an additional cut 130,000 new federal anopheles at haskell in years. callously retarded that, it will have an impact. this is the difficulty we have tried to get control of responding all of because every single time you restrict spending, you will affect the real, living breathing american citizen and their family. these are difficult choices that have to be made. te are responding to pas promises, and we have to begin to find a valid point. it is not about protecting taxes for the rich. january 1, and i voted for it, i voted to allow some of those tax increases to go through. i voted to put the payroll tax back in place. we will have to have some revenue increases, because the gap is too large. i do not believe this is the doomsday that is being presented by the president or prime some of my colleagues in the congress. -- or by some of my colleagues in this congress. if we look historically, the last decade, those taxes yielded roughly 16.9% revenue against gdp. spending has historically been around 19.5% of gdp. still a gap there. deficit spending without regard to that. the gap is too large. if we could pull spending back to the historical levels of 19.6% of the nation's gdp, i would be more than willing to bring revenue up to that. host: rep reid ribble, what cuts to republicans want to make to make -- do republicans want to make to entitlements? guest: i have done some town halls and wisconsin. my constituents and wisconsin centered around three basic things. we should take a look of the cap. right now they pay taxes on roughly the first $110,000 of income. we could raise that 200,000 or 300,000 to pull in additional revenue. that would be one option. several people favored that. some people said why don't we raise the age? we are being unfair to the grandparents who came in at age 65 but died 68. if we were to age adjusted for them, they should have started collecting at age 59 based on current age levels. we might have to increase the age by a year. why can't we means test it? this was really a social safety net for the poor. i think all of these ideas have merit, and real reform might include elements of all of those. host: joe, independent calller. go on tho ahead. caller: this sequestration is already affecting my friend in the army. he was supposed to go to afghanistan in august, and now they stopped because they cannot afford to send them to different locations. i am kind of afraid if the sequestration and ends tomorrow, or even a month from now, my son will not get the training he needs to go. i went to iraq and needed six months of intense training to go for a year. host: how much training has your son had so far? caller: a year of training, but you have to have specific training to go to afghanistan. you have to learn that some of the language. you have to learn some of the equipment of the vehicles. you need to learn a lot of things. guest: thanks for your question and concern, and thank you for your families service. here is the reality on afghanistan. some of this might be related to the sequestered, but it is more likely related to the fact that the war in afghanistan is starting to wind down. greens are starting to reduce manpower, and we will continue to see a reduction in force over there. deployments will be shorter. -- marines are starting to reduce manpower. that is something i support. i think we should get out of afghanistan and let the country manage its own civilian population on its own and provide whatever assistance we need from an educational standpoint to help the economy. that would be the type of policy going forward, and i think that is what will happen. your son could be caught up in a combination of thing. one is the reduction of force in afghanistan, and what the defense department will do it sequester takes place. things are on hold. i put a bill in last night that would provide flexibility for the secretary of defense. rather than having the cuts go across every single line item, they would be able to prioritize how they spend the money, which may choose to put more money into training and remove money from some other place within the department. thank you for your call. >> the white house put out a state-by-state breakdown of sequester and how it will impact different areas of the country. times- "the richminond dispatch." "the hartford curourant." what do you make of this strategy? guest: i think it is the political strategy, and working. the present has a very loud a bully pulpit. what the president has not talked about is what will happen if interest rates go to 4%. we pay 260 billion in interest. we're looking at a balanced budget that is in an eight- tenure windrow out there. we will continue to add debt. we have to recognize and be honest with the american people that these are things we cannot afford. right now the government, the federal government is consuming almost 25 percent of the nation's full productive output. if we continue spending the way we are with career rates of growth in the economy, it will not be long before taking a third of the nation's economy. we have to control it to protect our children. we have to get our arms around this. it will be painful. we're going to feel it. wisconsin is one to feel it. every single american will feel it. the counter to that is what they are want to feel later if there was an economic collapse would be truly calamitous in this country. host: 8.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education. 3000 civilian at department of defense employees furloughed. 661,000 cuts in funding for job search agencies. have you heard from constituencies? guest: in part, but i am likely to hear the calls i have heard today, americans do not believe the hyperbole. this is how politicians are. the media plays into it. they use words like devastating and take an ax and all these things and they make it much worse than what it actually will be. if in fact we could get transfer authority to the agencies so they could pick and choose, how can you root out waste this way? if every agency knows where the waste is in their department, it will allow them to get rid of the waste rather than get rid of critical programs. host: we use impact here on c- span. reid ribble member of the budget committee. thank you for talking to viewers this morning. our conversation about sequestration continues here. the last hour we will break down sequester and the impact on the labor department, as well as housing industry and housing and urban development agency. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> ben bernanke heading to capitol hill this morning to give his semi-annual report to the senate banking committee. members are expected to question him about the future of the fed's bond buying program, his views of the economy, and thoughts of the budget impact between congress and the white house. that hearing will be live at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio and television, and the maryland state senate will take up a gun control measures supported by martin o'malley. one of the most contentious provisions would require people to submit fingerprints for handgun licensing. that bill would be an assault weapon -- assault weapons and prohibit people of been in voluntary committed for mental health reasons from owning guns. the governor of delaware heads to capitol hill today to testify at a hearing on the employment of disabled people. that will take place before the senate health education labor and pension committee. officials from washington state, oklahoma, and utah are scheduled to testify. finally, the vatican has answered some of the questions future when heope's retires. he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes. the vatican also saying pope benedict himself makes those decisions. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> on route 66 people were travelling, either traveling for fun or traveling looking for a job. maybe they were on their way to the grand canyon. so it first route 66 was just a way to get somewhere. your destination was in california. but later on after the snake pits started popping up in the tourist traps and attractions and the cafes and motels and the trading post, when those things started springing up, it almost became like a big amusement park. route 66 became the destination. it is not like can we go to the beach in california? it was like let's go down route 66 because all the fun stuff was there pi. >> get your kicks on route 66 in albuquerque, new mexico. c-span will look behind the scenes of the history and literary life in albuquerque. host: in our last hour of this week we are taking a look at sequestration and the possible impact, what could happen on different agencies of the federal government. this morning we are joined by a journalist from the washington post. we're talking about spending -- possible spending cuts to the labor department. how big is the labor department in relation to the rest of the federal government? guest: of verily moderately- sized apartment. it does not house that many employees. the biggest expense is unemployment compensation, but -- overall the department has seen across-the-board cuts of 5.3%. host: what impact would that have on different programs within the labor department? guest: compensation is exempt. -- term compensation -- long- term compensation is not exempt. people who have been on unemployment will see cuts in their benefits of up to 9.4%. other programs like job corps, job centers aid to veterans tend to find work will be cut by 5.3%. host: the labor department sent out a letter laying out what you were just talking about. they say the long-term unemployed cuts to the program, a loss of $400 in benefits would impact 2 million people. how do they know this? is anyone questioning those numbers? guest: i have looked into those a little bit, and they seem fairly credible. this is a unusual recession and that most recessions people get back relatively quickly, but we have this large reserve of one bus terminal for people. -- long-term unemployed people. the 2 million members seems about right, but there is always the people who could about to become on the program. then again, growth is not likely to speed up the cuts take effect. host: what is the impact of this on the economy? guest: not devastating, but- generally. the cbo estimate was that you would see gdp growth of about 0.6 percentage points lower than you would otherwise see. that is a lot. in a good year the economy will grow about 3%. we have been growing about 2% per year since we started recovering. about a quarter of what we will be growing at. it amounts to about 700,000 jobs according to macroeconomic advisers. host: on march 1 when we reached the deadline, does that mean that unemployment benefits are reduced? guest: so the way that the sequestered happens is you do not just cut by department or even program, they have to be equally distributed across projects and activities. the last time we had a sequestered, activity was defined to avoid controversy. one person told me about a program for navigation project to decide what buoys were needed for nautical navigation, and that activity was a specific buoy in the water. so there is really little discussion to avoid things like that too long-term unemployment compensation. host: will workers at the labor department be furloughed? guest: almost certainly. they're in a bit of a bind and that they're not allowed to mess with federal pay scales. if you are a federal worker, you will still be on the same pay scale, but they are required to reduce activities. among those is payroll. the way that you reconcile not being able to reduce people's pay is to have them work fewer hours. i would expect on average labor department workers will see a 5% less working hours the last year host. caller: host: we're talking about sequestration and the impact of the labor department. colorado's springs, a republican. caller: think you. i think we need the sequestered. . -- thank you. i think it would be useless if we did not close the loopholes. i used to be an accountant. i can tell you raising taxes on the wealthy will do nothing unless we can eliminate offshore accounts. if we could just do that, i think a sequester would almost be unnecessary. it would close the existing loopholes. i do not know what to say. congress, having them lose 20 percent of their pay would do nothing. they would not even notice a 20 percent cut. guest: 2 points. one is our spending cuts like this necessary and a good bit? the second is what about taxes? it is interesting because what carol is proposing a cutting loopholes and deductions is on the table when is the poster was implemented in that i know the obama administration was more partial to a proposal where we would see across-the-board cuts in deductions, which would disproportionately hit the wealthy. that did not a ticket -- that did not get agreed to for fairly obvious reasons. house republicans do not like that as much as revenue cuts. even if you believe you need $110 billion in cuts this year to the federal budget, almost no one thinks this is the way to do it. i did "i would want discretion to cut travel expenses and training programs, other than reduce services." this would reduce services. host: we have this on twitter. host: are they impacted by this? guest: about $44 million. it is an area like disaster prevention that in my end up costing us more than it saves us. host: why? guest: one thing that went wrong with the stimulus package in 2009. they have these thesegdp numbers optimistice -- theygd gdp numbers. getting an accurate sense of the economy is really important. that is almost what the sequester is. they will cut all programs across the board. there is already a federal pay freeze and will likely be a hiring freeze. there might be some hiring for some critical positions if nuclear missile launcher retires we will want to replace him. it could look very much like what he is proposing. host: what are the american job centers? guest: centers that provide basically social work to help people get resumes and provide skills for applying to the job market. there is mixed evidence on how much good they do. some studies suggest people would have gone to the jobs anyway. about making it easier for people to access the job market, they are an important tool. host: there were be reductions on the job centers across the country. they would be close down. the centers have not been as effective and there would be closed for an amount of time. guest: the secretary sounds optimistic to do that. be that each job center would have to be cut by c5%. it could be even worse. host: jane in cincinnati. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. i wonder about the vietnam pensions instead of the ones that should be in effect now from the war that we're still in. i wonder if they have considered cutting some of their pay that they are getting. they are considering social security. everybody needs of their money. i wonder if they have discussed the pensions from the vietnam war. i appreciate both of you on the air. host: thank you. guest: i have some good news for jane. the department of veterans affairs is exempt from cuts. no one wants to balance the budget on the back of veterans. that does include -- there are numerous protection for others. social security is totally exempt. checks will not be reduced. host: maverick on twitter. do you know if that's true? guest: that is an interesting point. this is one area where there will be more discretion for how the cuts are done because they will be done by private companies. if the government is supposed to cut pay scales, but if they reduce payments to a contractor, there is no law preventing that contractor from laying off 5% of its employees. they have so much more discretion than the government. we are talking about the impact sequestration could have on the labor department. the office of the job corps, what is it? guest: a program meant to provide a federal service for people that might need training or support in their communities to get in the job market. it was from the clinton administration. host: who is it for? low-income youths? guest: i don't know on that point. it is mostly targeted for low income people. host: veterans employment and training services. what do they do and how could mpacted?i guest: veterans who might need skills or support. this was not included in the exemption for veterans' programs because it is house within the department of labor. that would be cut like everything else. i think the total is $4 million or something. it is 5% of the overall budget. host: john in virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i started under a program when i was 14. that was a low income work program for teenagers. it was a great thing for me growing up. i have been working since i was 14. i have since become disabled. the corporate cuts with government. they should look at some of these corporate cuts and close some of the loopholes for the multibillion-dollar companies that are not paying any taxes. i don't have a problem with cutting some of the services we do have. host: dylan matthews? guest: this will be an area that congress will be working on. the most popular proposal is to reduce certain loopholes. you would also reduce the rate. the top rate is currently 35%. most people want to reduce that to 26%, 27%. also, how you treat the money you earned abroad. territorial corporate tax system where you are taxed on the money you earned within the united states. there is the world wide tax system. your tax on the money wherever. we are somewhere in between. there is a tax incentive to leave it over there. you could say no taxes on that money or that we will start taxing money as it comes thin. host: dave in new jersey. caller: i think the problem that i see -- not so much that the sequester should take place. the programs that they are cutting. it is almost like we're being sent to timeout. the programs they are cutting are so critical for day-to-day operations. i do not understand the mindset as to why they choose these specific programs. it seems to me they are picking these programs that are so critical as opposed to some other programs that could probably be cut. guest: the important thing to remember about the sequester is that it is a timeout. it was designed as a punishment for congress if they did not put together a balanced program. now these are taking effect. that is what you hear from congressman. they were designed to be painful so that congress would come to a deal. they are a blunt instruments. host: they picked programs or was it across the board? guest: there are certain exemptions. the obama administration fought hard for low income people. there was no appetite to cut social security checks and that was exempted. the cuts for medicare was limited. it doesn't look like you're cutting services for people. but it is a problem in that they are cutting discretionary spending. there is a lot of discretionary spending in the defense department. is it ise learning hard to cut those programs without hitting something that americans want to preserve. the money is going to be in health programs because of the cost growth in health care is so fast. appetite to have an be told they could buy last madison. edicine. host: there is a comprehensive sequester primer put together by our guest, dylan matthews, in "the washington post." caller: my name is john. host: got it. caller: does he know how much the federal budget has increased this year or they proposed increasing this year? when did the more cost saving just to put that back to last year's budget? i am assuming that would be less than the sequester. thank you. guest: discretionary spending will be lower this year because of the sequester. there will not be an inflation increase. what would be entailed by what john is proposing is a lot of cuts to medicare and health care costs. you go to your doctor and you buy your services and they are paid. medicare has an obligation to pay for whatever services you purchased if you are over 65. setting a global budget for medicare saying this is what we are going to spend. that is something to love health-care experts want to s ee. host: there is a letter laying out the impact of the sequester. how would sequester impact that program? guest: osha was started by richard nixon. it is the workplace safety and injury part of the government. they have the inspectors to go into offices and make sure manufacturers are not cutting off fingers and that people are not getting injuries at their jobs. people sitting at their computers to not get carpal tunnel. there will probably be furloughs of inspectors. osha is already overburdened and has too many cases and i think this will exacerbate the problem. host: george from ohio. caller: i understand you cannot cut the pay of the congress and the senate. what about the support programs, the rail system that takes them back and forth, the travel from their home state to washington, d.c. i am not talking about security. are they being affected by the state dinners? it's not going to be $85 billion . no one has ever brought that up.] let congress suffer a little bit. guest: legislative functions, staffers salaries, everything is considered domestic discretionary spending and it will be caught like everything else. host: not the salaries of members of congress. that is saved from sequestration. we have this on twitter. jacksonville, florida, hi. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question for you, dylan -- i feel like people have not talked about the sequestration being a gamble on the american people. .e're seeing it unfolds now it is just a gamble. it is crazy. guest: there are a lot of things we are gambling on. i talk to someone who ran the national institutes of health and did research in this country under george w. bush. he said this will set back science for a generation. people would have become biologist but are not because they are concerned about funding. grants will not be levied to save lives. the national institute of health has about 140 nobel prizes to its name and it is being cut the same as everything else. host: because they are looking at sequestration for over the next 10 years? guest: they are being cut the same as any other agency or department. it means fewer grants that lasts for a number of years that could lead to interesting conclusions for the country. that is an interesting fog. joe manchin wants to do exactly that -- that is an interesting thought. it would basically give agencies more discretion. you could say that you'll be cut 5%, do that how you like. they could target programs that need to be cut first rather than doing an across-the-board cut. i think that would appeal to a lot of people. it would put a lot of strain on administrators within those departments. there would have to make some hard choices to figure out how to make that work. maybe people go to fewer conferences every year and have less professional training. host: 1 last tweet. guest: that is an interesting thought. that is a possibility that transfer authority would be able to play around a little bit. host: dylan matthews, thank you very much. guest: thank you for having me. host: what now turn to the housing agency. jon prior is here to talk about the sequestration on housing. let's begin with the current state of the housing industry. guest: we are seeing some good news. 2012 a big turnaround for the housing market. 2012 was the turnaround. go are seeing home sales co- up. borrowers are seeing some equity return. it is a fragile recovery. we have taken an off life- support but it has not been checked out of the hospital yet. host: what could be the impact on the housing industry? guest: the lesson we learned is how attached the jobs market. if you take away 750,000 jobs, you will see more rich performance suffer going forward. there's a lot of people heading nine. 2.7 million people that are scraping by on savings. if you take away another income, you could see more foreclosures or delinquencies go up. you can see the turnaround began in home prices. it could go back down. the possibility for more delinquencies. it could be a real setback for this year. host: the housing and urban development. how does it compare to other agencies? guest: it is big. the budget is about $45 billion . regulates thousands of companies. it provides financing through the fha to low income and first- time home buyers. it is not as big as some of the other defense organizations in d.c. it will not take the brunt of penalties some of the other agencies will feel but it is sizable and has a big footprint. host: let's listen to what the hud secretaries have to say. [video clip] >> it would be destructive to hud programs and those who rely on them. it would cause significant damage to our nation's housing markets. sequestration would mean about 125,000 individuals and families losing assistance provided through the house insurance voucher program and becoming at risk of homelessness. more than 100,000 homeless and formerly homeless people being removed from their programs and putting them at substantial risk of returning to the streets. host: what is the secretary talking about? guest: the biggest hit will be to the voucher program. the biggest hit will be to that program. the issue is 125,000 people are not going to be thrown onto the street on march 2. they will first look at -- they will try to target the outstanding vouchers that have not been paid yet. the vouchers that they are still seeking someone to work with a landlord, for instance. they would withdraw that money first. then dodgers that maybe expire in two or three months. those people looking for a new home, expected to leave soon, but that's a process that will take place over two or three weeks into march. is not that 125,000 people will hit the streets on march 2 but it's still a painful cut for those people who depend on those vouchers. host: hud put out a letter outlining what happened. host: what does that mean for the foreclosure rate in this country? guest: it has become something of a disaster. it is elongated in places like new york. there are different settlements coming down from different agencies here in d.c. they do provide more options for homeowners to avoid foreclosure. it is a lengthy process. .ou'll need a counselor people who go through these agencies can access some of those options like a refinanced through some of those new programs. if you take away those counselors, the process becomes difficult for people to navigate. i don't think you'll see foreclosures spike initially. there is such a backlog in this country. there is 10 million or so people trying to get by in the delinquency stage. if you take away those housing counselors, there is less help to navigate through that complicated process. host: our top . is the fha-backed loans slowed. guest: most for minority communities and first-time home buyers. hud possibly cut some of the administrative people that operate fha. fha faces $16.3 billion shortfall from actuaries study. the white house budget is supposed to come out i marcn march. they will have their own assessment as to what the shortfall will be. or some policy changes. a lot of people working very hard to cover the shortfall. if the sequester goes into place, they will be taking manpower away from that agency to cover that. they will pull another housing bailout. that is probably more unsavory than some of the budget cuts being considered. host: first phone call, bob in minnesota. caller: good morning. my question regarding a financial institution hanging onto foreclosed properties and roppedg the market porppe up. win the release of those properties have a greater effect than the sequester problem and the impacts ? tost: that's one theory -- release these foreclosures, that will relieve some pressure on the banks and that can free up more lending. we have an inventory shortfall. a lot of people are keeping their homes off the market. if you reduce the housing counselors, some funding for that, you could see home prices sink again. if you bring out foreclosures -- they typically sell less than former home sells. i am not sure that is a theory people want to experiment with right now. there are signs of recovery in the market. these foreclosed homes are being managed. that could throw off the momentum we are seeing. host: we have a tweet. is it a big deal for hud? guest: it is. it is not something that should be taken for granted. the house recovery is not something we can all be counting on to continue going from here. if you go in and cut people for fha that are supporting 1/3 of the market, it seems backwards to what congress is trying to do for the housing market. it is not something that should be washed over. host: thomas, republican caller. caller: i am a disabled combat veteran. i just got into a home. are you going to cut the disability pay or the educational benefits? is that affected by the sequester? guest: i'm not sure where the cuts or for education. the homeless cuts are going straight to the shelters. hud will cannot possibly laying off employees and cutting back some of those services that you mentioned. 100,000 homeless people might be put back on to the streets. it is perilous for people at the lower income of our society but those kind of things could go away. host: we have this on twitter. jim in alabama. caller: hi. i meant by the leak graduate and not 74 and a ban on social security -- and have been on social security. my friends and i -- they are fairly politically active in all three parties -- we do not believe this devastation that people are warning us about will actually happen. we think it is like crying wolf. i wonder why the administration and other agencies are not telling us about the way they will adjust to it, all of this scare tactics. why were all bus social security get aents, we didn't raise in our social security at all. we did get one this year, a couple of percent. we all adjusted. there will just run themselves more efficiently. they will get rid of the dead wood. host: what about that? guest: that is an interesting point. one official told me he never had to prepare for something like this. i think that is the issue. hud has not put out guidons to some of the local affiliates. we're still trying to figure wrapped what we need to adjust. it is almost on a principal what congress is up to right now. we should not be dealing with these sort of self invented crises. there are a lot of things that those in the industry are looking to possibly start home shopping soon. there are large reforms that need to be undertaken right now and are long overdue. we are instead dealing with these budgetary issues that seemingly have no end. they keep coming up and our kicked down the road. yesterday we have the bipartisan policy center introduce a very well thought out and choreographed plan for what to do with fannie mae and freddie mac and how to move this market into the next generation of tit. a lot of people are strolling about why we're not taking on those problems and why we are settling for tackling these political issues that keep coming up when we should be forming more housing policy and more concrete plans that could help homeowners and lenders to free up more credit and help the housing market a little bit better. host: how does sequester impact relief to those on the east coast impacted by hurricane sandy? guest: it was brought up in the committee hearing. the congress did pass some help that will go to these communities affected by the storm. we're considering cutting back some of that. it puts in limbo that money and plans for getting things back to normal there. the cuts are real and could pull back some of the assistance to build up some of the homes damaged in the storm. you just approved these funds and now we could be cutting into them again. host: virginia in cincinnati, ohio. caller: i'm wondering if the sequester is as bad as the president is saying it is an scaring all the people to death. why is see flying in air force one, what is in heat in washington, d.c., talking to the democrats and republicans to get this settled? sale of all the these planes and tanks to egypt, why couldn't that have been stopped? that's not fair for us to be giving them all that kind of stuff. host: got it, virginia. guest: that is some of the frustration. this administration and congress are doing things, they are tackling issues that some of us back home are wondering, why are we doing some of these things? a lot of these things are distractions away from more thorough reforms to put things back together again. the housing market is not a normal place right now. we are relying so much on fannie and freddie and fha. if we continue down this path, we will not get to the complicated and policy-wonk task of dealing with these issues in getting the housing market back to where it should be. host: speak about hurricane sandy, governor cuomo wants to use parts of federal money to buy out homeowners and they will get 100% of their home's m value. homeowners could receive another 5% if they relocate on staten island. host: tony in florida it is up next for jon prior. caller: hi. i want to say something on the sequester. i am a federal firefighter. we're getting ready to be furloughed where we will lose 30% of par paour pay. my wife is on disability. the crying wolf thing is not crying wolf. this is happening. anytime you lose 30% of your income, that is tough. our rates for housing and flood insurance and wind insurance, everything continues to go up. we have not had an increase in over three years. we are not crying wolf. i don't know what your take on that would be. guest: that is a good point. that is the issue. places that are hard hit by the housing crisis are just now starting to come back. home prices in las vegas showed their first double digit home price gain since before the crisis. there are still 10.4 million people that are under water on their homes. there is still a lot of people just hanging on. the recovery is growing. people are putting their lives back together. we are at a level that we have not seen since the early part of 2007. congress is about to put in cuts that could damage the economy and set people back again. people are not prepared for another hit. housing is not equipped right now to take the kind of blow it could possibly receive. host: we have a tweet from one of our viewers. guest: right. that is the issue. before the crisis if you ran into trouble, would refinance or sell your house. home prices took a plunge. we cannot refinance these home owners. if these prices sink even further, more and more people will not be able to refinance. they will not be able to afford the payments. it goes back to what congress is trying to do. there are bills in the house and the senate. if you do something like the sequester, the damage the economy again and send home prices down. more people will not be able to take revenge of those opportunities. host: 70 in missouri -- cindy in missouri. good morning. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i have a comment about the shelter care program. i mentally ill. because of that, i lost my home of 33 years. i live in joplin, missouri. i got a notice saying my shelter will come to an end next month. i feel i'm going to be out on the street again. i'm just wondering, is to anything to be done about that? host: jon prior? guest: there are local housing officials i spoke to this week who are trying to -- they understand there are people at risk of hard times ahead if this goes through. they are trying to develop plans to ease people into some other option and maybe find some other funding for them, privately funded shelters. there's a lot going on right now to figure out how to make up for these cuts that are coming simply for political reasons. host: explained the local housing administrators, the chain of command up through washington and who controls housing on a state level. guest: the state and the local officials. they are the ground troops for taking direction and taking money from the government's to the ones that are operating these programs, the ones setting the money to landlords and sending subsidies to homeowners and to the shelters and organizing these things and making sure that people are in the right place. these budget cuts, they have not seen anything like this before. this all theall t sudden, it puts them in a bind on the ground level. some people say there's not enough funding to make up for some of the stuff that government is considering taking away our right now. even though you take away vouchers that are outstanding, usually that money does not comeback. you will see fewer doctors going forward -- you will see fewer vouchers going forward. host: how big is the federal housing program and other programs like that? guest: a lot of people depend on that program, something like 2.5 million people and most of those people are minorities. they will be directly affected by those cuts. host: joel in georgia. caller: how are you? i have a question about the independent full closure review settlement that was reached in january. they have stopped all reviews, case by case reviews. how were they going to decide the distribution if they are not doing more reviews? guest: that is an interesting question. in april 2011, 14 banks saddled with the office of the comptroller and the regulators over past abuses. they pledged to offer reviews to homeowners to see if any of those abuses cost financial harm. those reviews were more expensive for the banks and

Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Your World With Neil Cavuto 20150616

this is like a full body cavity search when you're running for president. they go through everything. you're okay with that? >> it's all right. >> yeah? >> i've been a very public person. i think i've been the most public businessman there is. i did a filing four years ago and it was fantastic filing. everybody said wow, we had no idea he built that great of a company and now it's much better. >> would you finance your own campaign? >> yes. i would self-fund. i don't need anybody's money or money from lobbyists. >> that is trump's biggest asset. he is already bought and paid for himself. >> a profound point, and now he's off and running and presumably with the money to fund a pretty big advertiseing rates at that. will it make a difference? >> i think it will. he owns it all, neil. this is a man, i guess, has dabbled in some real estate been known to keep a couple dollars in this bank more importantly is not going to give in to the special interest groups, the lobbyists. hey, ford motors american companies, he's not going to give in to foreign countries. that may be the message as far as what a true candidate could stand for that america needs. >> there is something about a commonality with billionaires they don't answer to any. by the same token they feel they can buy anything. i remember in the case of michael bloomberg when he ran for mayor, while well-known in the business community he was just an asterisk in the political polls until he flooded the airways with one commercial after another and wouldn't you know he won for mayor right after the 9/11 attacks and went on for three full terms. it is possible. on the presidential level, ross perot the billionaire had trouble with that. you couldn't buy your way to that big job. what makes you think trump could be different or how do you see this playing out? >> he i think, realizes he needs to make that connection with america. if you think back to the announcement today, it was at times assertive and at times rather aggressive. most importantly very ambitious for all of us as america to get back to what made this nation great and talk about what's happened in our local cityies in the last several years with regards to the economy and jobs moving overseas frankly you can identified with. i think that's where the votes go. they go with the identification of the candidate who knows what's going on in america. his acumen in the private sector is exactly what this country needs. needs. >> a lot of people i don't know about you but their knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss trump, doesn't have a chance. i tend to gravitate to those who instantly dismiss opposed to those who say they're inside candidates or whatever only because you're covering markets like you you're richly rewarded if you're a contrarian. having said that i think he hits a nerve with people regardless of his wealth or controversy or whether he's a little too arrogant whatever. there's a reason why over half the eligible voters don't vote in this country. he tapped a nerve, an anger about the declineing days in america and why we take greed from china and japan. >> and new mexico. >> and he answers that. i don't know if that's the great elixir or response but he hits a nerve. >> he is a lightning rod, neil. he is a spokesperson and he is taking on or portraying the message that frankly candidates for four eight, 10 15 years, have not put out. i think that's the message that the american people, to some degree want to say themselves. the fact he's carrying that forward is something i think can get him some legitimate votes. >> do you think wall street would be as kind to a donald trump, because he bashed wall street a little bit today. he said it's essentially built on air, this is a market that's built on a lot of ginnys and benefits and the fed, kind of giveing a taste here that they might not like that message? >> i think it's a tough message. you're right. he's going to play hardball with some companies. he mentioned the ford example. he's not going to give wall street any free passes. while the comments today were that the market rallied because trump threw his hair or hat in the ring i still think he's going to be tough on wall street and that may not be good for stocks in the long term. >> well said my friend. let us know when you're running for office so we can grease the skids for that. >> tomorrow. >> tomorrow. all right, scott martin. now, to why hillary might be doing a 180, not because the donald is in the race but because the bernie is on her case. former free trader hillary clinton ripping not only the deals of the president who used to be her boss but the deals of the last democratic president who is still very much her husband. not surprised by this sharp left turn. it all has to do with certain polls. >> let me quote the late great marian barry. she's being a situationist. are you familiar with that term? >> i am. >> this is the situation. the situation is she can't out-left bernie sanders or for that matter martin o'malley. she doesn't want to concede that constituency. if she gets the nomination she realizes there's a whole other group of voters in the center that's the general election strategy. she can't get to be the nominee unless she gets nominated. as i've said before to you the nomination process is really masses of people who are self-proclaimed unabashed liberals and union members and people who are friendly to labor and she doesn't want to lose all of them. she might not get a majority of them or even half of them but she doesn't want to just throw it all away. that's why she made the remarks. >> i definitely think you're right. i called this when i looked at the repudiation of the president with this trade vote on friday i was stunned. i said at that moment this is the party of bernie sanders that -- >> well -- >> i'm just saying for hillary clinton, she -- >> the party that selects the nominee -- >> she parted with these views and policies that were the base of her husband's presidency as well as barack obama's hopes. where is the party going? >> i think she has to part with barack obama even more with the constituency that will nominate her. at some point, she's got to say, i'm not bill clinton, i'm not barack obama. >> barack obama is not exactly a rageing moderate. i'm saying if you have to go to the left of barack obama, you're pretty left. >> a lot of the left is dissatisfied with barack obama. he wasn't the president that they thought he might have been and the point of it is that the people vote especially in those early states and caucuses iowa new hampshire, south carolina and nevada are not even a picture of the drinkemocratic party, they are picture of a certain ideology passionate partisan -- >> too much so? is it driveing so far to the left that they make that nominee unelect unelectable? >> that's a very good point. i don't like complimenting you neil, a very good point. george mcgovern in '72 was considered too far to the left. walter mondale was considered too far to the left. hubert humphrey even was considered too far to the left. they think now -- democrats think and they might be right, that the demographics of the country have changed. hispanic voters black voters the turnout in the general election 20 years ago was 90% white. it is now only 71% white. >> fair enough. >> they think in they get hurt but in the election years, every four years they have to stir up the faithful. she has to be sort of a -- i thought she tried to get cover with nancy pelosi who broke with the president, surprised, i think, a lot of people and they said you better work with nancy. also i thought it was a veiled criticism of his persona. obama's persona. all of a sudden you start going to baseball games with the congress people and you start phoneing people even phone boehner. >> i like complimenting you. it's always good having you. thank you very much my friend. in the meantime it is a good thing donald trump has a lot of bucks because he sure burned a lot of bridges and one of them goes all the way to texas. who are the real hacks? the guys spying on us or government officials who won't level with us? >> does it include military personnel? >> as i said -- >> it's a yes-no question. does it include military personnel? >> i would be glad to discuss that in a classified setting. >> does it include contractor information? >> again, i would be glad to discuss that in a classified setting. >> there is nothing classified what information this includes. there were tears in my eyes. and tears in my eyes. and so many little things that we learned were really the biggest things. through it all, we saved and had a retirement plan. and someone who listened and helped us along the way. because we always knew that someday the future would be the present. every someday needs a plan. talk with us about your retirement today. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis like me... and you're talking to a rheumatologist about a biologic this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. doctors have been prescribing humira for more than 10 years. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contrubutes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tu infections and cancers including lymphoma have happened, as have blood liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com this is humira at work. he recommended it was so bad you shut it down and you didn't. and i want to know why. >> there are many responsibilities we have with our data. >> what kind of grade would you give yourself? >> i am -- >> kick seeddedseed -- succeeding or failing? >> i am -- i am -- cybersecurity problems take decades. >> we don't have decades. they don't take decades. >> i'm sorry. >> are you going to resign? >> all right. who needs closed doors when you can just close off debate period because of our capitol hill producer can't get answers after hearing that we all have to ask questions. what is going on here? >> reporter: there is a lot of consternation about this. the inspector general at the office of personnel management recommended opm completely shut down these personnel files because there was vulnerability to them being hacked and that's what happened. that's why the chairman of the oversight committee is saying in order to get this changed we have to have some heads roll some change at the top here some leadership. you heard me trying to ask kathryn as she went in then to a second meeting, a house-wide classified briefing for all members alongside homeland security secretary, jeh johnson, to explain this. she wasn't taking the bait about whether or not she would resign. there are a lot of mex verymbers very upset about this. stephen lynch said he wished she worked as hard at keeping hackers out as stonewalling congress. there is also a very interesting dynamic in this. this is a pot meets kettle moments here on capitol hill. several lawmakers talked to called me off to the side a little later said you know the problem with this we will be a little more circumspect about this. yes, there will be calls for resignation and calls for heads to roll. at the end of the day, the united states does this too, the united states hacks chinese and hacks russians and try to get at these secrets as well. that's why you might get a muted response because they say, we have to get our information from these folks as well. >> that's concerning them because if that gets out there, all of a sudden we are protest protesting too much. >> right. that's the concern here. at the end of the day, people are really amazed there weren't better levels of security here. there was a moment where the republican congressman from south carolina was talking and said we're doing the best we can and he said flippantly interrupt interruptinginterrupt ing her, that's what frightens me. that's the exact quote. there will probably be more on this trying to get information who all was hacked and how they were hacked. i just learned the last couple of hours, some people who had broken service with the federal government worked for the feds and went away and came back they were exposed to this. at the end of the day, nobody knows exactly how much they got. it is millions upon millions of federal employees. very scary. >> chad you're an encyclopedia young man. thank you very much. a detective saying they can find out anything about any and he said if you don't think that's what hackers are doing with this information, think again. i always wonder when someone say says that it's such an overused phrase. what do they have? what's the process? >> they have all the personal data pertaining to all these people this information came from. we're talking millions upon millions of government workers, their data is out there in the public available probably on the internet. i spoke with a senior government official this morning who actually works in the department that handles a lot of internet security. i asked him in one word how would you describe the level of cybersecurity protection in the federal government? he said lousy. a lot of individuals we have working within the federal government and contractors just don't get it. they don't have the concept what's required to protect the data. what happens? what happened last week get all the data out there on the internet. >> the data is what? a guy like you if i put you on a mission to find dirt on people you can probably do it in a millisecond. >> that's right. >> we're talking about enormous far more vast and a target far more sweeping. what are you getting? with a social security number you have entree to a lot of stuff, right? >> you do. you get social security numbers, you get personal affiliations get bank accounts it is really a horrible situation for the individual american. that's why, neil we really need to have some definitive answers come ing out of the administration right now. >> i always wrestle with this when people say they have a lot of skinny on you you might not see now or notice on your credit card s, that stuff is there. like what? >> such as your credit card information, family affiliation affiliations affiliations. the scary part of all of this with the information stolen from the government individuals last week you can literally take that information and recreate another person as that person like an anonymous person for that person and gain access to a lot of computer databases just using their information. >> you're not seizeing on it right away sort of like putting stuff in a file for use later on or someone could pay for it later on? >> they could pay for it or what typically happens is in the black market people will sell this data. they'll sell to it hackers and other people. people will pay a lot of money for that information and data because of what they can do with it. >> scary stuff. thank you, my friend. >> sure. in the meantime take it from a former secretary of defense, they really are hacking our military guy ss because jed just got a letter informing him he might be one of those guys. >> it's such a pleasure dealing with the government. the opm sent me a letter. >> office of personal management. >> yeah yeah sorry. we talk in acronyms ss anyway and try to hide english. the point came down to they said well we think you might have had data that were compromised in this hack. i don't really know. just in case we're going to give you a million dollars free identity theft insurance, like that's really going to do any good. the point is all these things come down to the government had all of this data and it's a lot more data than you think. not just your credit card records, just things of your social security number you're going to have every job you've ever had, every place that you've ever lived pretty much all of the fm information you would divulge to the government in order to get a security clearance. all i can say is thank god the cia has a separate system. i hope to hell they're protect protecting it. >> what i heard about your story, you're a former top official of the defense department undersecretary of defense. i'm thinking if jed can get hacked potentially, and his information can get compromised, man, i'm fair game and everyone else in america is fair game. >> sure. the fortunate part is i'm a pretty boreing guy. >> so you say. i'm on to you. >> well naw. we'll go into that off-camera. seriously, i don't have any criminal convictions, i never smoked dope. >> how do you snoeknow if this information didn't plannedland in the wrong hands. >> it obviously did land in the wrong hands. >> it said you might have been. >> nobody will ever know. if the chinese government decide decides to hack my personal computer i guess i'll know. if they decide to phony up a new jed babbin somewhere, i don't know why they'd bother. they could probably try to do that and somebody stumble across it. the real point is there is a vast amount of information that can possibly be used to blackmail people. >> scary. thank you. best of luck to you jed babbin. if it can happen to you it can happen to any. illegal immigrants who you can't kick out. oc casionally. but staying well - physically, financially, emotionally - its hard on your own. so cigna's got your back and your knees, 24/7. cigna's there to answer your questions. or when you need some coaching. in sickness and in health, cigna's there, helping you to get well and stay well. that's having a partner, who's with you all the way. cigna. meet the world's newest energy superpower. surprised? in fact, america is now the world's number one natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil. because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more. so you're a small business expert from at&t? yeah, give me a problem and i've got the solution. well, we have 30 years of customer records. our cloud can keep them safe and accessible anywhere. my drivers don't have time to fill out forms. tablets. keep them all digital. we're looking to double our deliveries. our fleet apps will find the fastest route. oh, and your boysenberry apple scones smell about done. ahh, you're good. i like to bake. with at&t get up to $400 dollars in total savings on tools to manage your business. (engines revving) listen up. ready. ready. (engines revving) steady. (engines revving) go! ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ it's more than a movie. it's now a ride. fast and furious. supercharged. ride it at universal studios hollywood. what if i told you roaming our streets right now, hundreds of convicted rapeists and child molesters and kidnappers caught because their home countries won't take them back. i don't have to tell you what maria from the "boston globe" just did. very interesting. thank you for that. explain what's going on here. they have records a mile long some of them and we can't get rid of them is that the gist of it? >> right. what immigration says is they have no choice but to release them because of a supreme court decision in 2001 that said they can't hold him grants forever. they can't deport them usually after six months they have to let them go. >> no matter how heinous the crime, we can't even temporarily lock them up? explain the process. >> well in what immigration calls rare cases, if someone is mentally ill and dangerous, they can peat to have somebody jailed longer and have done that in a few cases. in general, even people immigration has fought to keep in jail longer eventually they have in some cases, let them do in hundreds of cases actually. we detail that in our story. there were a couple of folks from cuba immigration argued for years and years they were dangerous, one was a convicted pedophile and the other a convicted rapeist. both of them are now free. >> one guy raised my eyebrows. he had a record. he had all sorts of issues that would certainly get the attention of authorities on either side of the border and yet his country doesn't want him back. is it our understanding when that happens even though he's here illegally, we're stuck with him? >> that's immigration's contention. other folks say -- cuba is a complicated case but they have taken back people in the past. one issue, there is someone in the story from brazil and we are dealing with -- the united states is dealing with the brazilian government to get him back and brazil refuses to issue a travel document to put him on an airplane and deport him. the big trouble is the secrecy of the immigration system. the only law enforcement agency that does not disclose to the public and detain detains. there's no public conversation about this no discussion or coverage about brazil's decision to not take back somebody who ended up going on after he was released and tortureing two little girls over a two year period. >> when the country says we're not taking him back is that because the country is made aware he committed a crime in this country, we don't want him back or do some of these crimes date back to their country of origin and they just continued it here? >> well actually we don't always know the country's reason. sometimes the country never even gives a reason. they just simply -- >> in other words, can't be both bother bothered right? >> yeah i mean we definitely saw that. we did a series in 2027 where bangladesh simply eluded and immigration agent and tried to get in touch with him, calling them sending letters, at some point he would be on hold an extremely long time and the line would disconnect. immigration had to release that man and he ended up killing a woman in new york. >> incredible. maria, incredible reporting. scary. thank you for revealing it. in the meantime you have to ask yourself the question what does it take to get you locked up in other words, if you're not going to be sent back at the very least is there a way to make sure you're locked up without a key? that's exactly what this border patrolman wants to know because he deals with it everyday. it sounds to me like you really have to be adolph hitler with multiple chain saws to get ship shipped back anywhere and even then it niece guarantee. what does a guy like you do? >> it's very frustrateing. we do our part and apprehend them and turn them over to i.c.e. customs law enforcement and a lot of times they get released. we had one of our agents last year murdered in front of his family and killed by two guys who had eight deportations between the both of them. it is frustrateing. >> what happened to those guys? was it an understanding their country of origin wouldn't take them back or we couldn't hold them? >> we had sent them back repeatedly and they kept coming back. we didn't put any type of -- any realtime on them. we didn't give them any real jail time one or two days here or there. there was no need for them to stay away. >> i've asked this before and you've been polite to indulge the same serieses of questions because i keep asking. what does it take to be de ported in this country, to get out of this country? >> to get out? you have to have some type of -- you can have an illegal entry. any crime of immoral turpitude, rain rape robbery, murder. unfortunately i don't know why we're indulgeing these other countries when they tell me they won't take back their citizen. their citizen, they shouldn't have a choice put them on a military transport and drop them off. >> the fact is we do get them with rap sheets a mile long rape you name it. the country doesn't want them back we kind of throw up our arms and say, all right, i guess we'll keep them here. but we don't keep them here we don't keep them locked up. >> yeah. we just release them into the country. she did a great job, a great story. she hit the nail on the head and unfortunately nobody is taking accountability for this. there's innocent families out there being affected by these people and it's terrible. it's shameful. >> have deportations pretty much stopped, the president not withstanding that two judges have dismissed, have they just stopped? are we just not deporting? >> there are some but it's trickling. it's very very slow. we're not deporting nearly where we need to be. >> good luck chris, on your job, it has to be tough these days. >> thank you. if we already have to kill al qaeda leaders in yemen, why are we releaseing more al qaeda gitmo detainees quite near together i'd say next together. good-bye gitmo and hello oman. and does the donald appear to say rick perry sweats? because he doesn't seem to be sweating the donald? back in 60 seconds. thanks for calling angie's list. how may i help you? i heard i could call angie's list if i needed work done around my house at a fair price. you heard right, just tell us what you need done and we'll find a top rated provider to take care of it. so i could get a faulty light switch fixed? ahmad ahmad. the national security council just confirming talked's number two was killed in yemen. that's the good news. here's the bad, may be very bad, we just released a group of al qaeda detainees near yemen. and that could be a very big problem. why, colonel? >> several reasons. by the way, i can't help but notice you stumbled on a great new sitcom title, "hello oman." >> unintentional. >> great. the guy that was able to kill in yemen had one of the former detainees killed along with him in yemen. that's a clue. these guys we're releaseing are not going and weaveing baskets or taking up rug making they're going back to the battlefield insignificant numbers. >> do you knowsnoeknow under what auspice auspices we release them say don't forget to keep an eye on these guys. when they go to these countries, do the deposits do that? >> -- do the deposits do that? >> not a good job. they're doing everything they can to prevent us from doing that. i have no confidence we're doing anything to track these guys we are releaseing in oman. one of these guys was bin laden's bodyguard. there's no doubt in my mind this guy will find a way to re-engage those terrorist elements he's already been working with. we know this. this president said to the security council we know these guys are bad. we're aware there is a chance and they don't care. that's what makes it far worse than saying we will take a chance and see what happens. they know the chances are bad. >> colonel, we already know there are about 100 left at gitmo and the administration's goal is to empty that place out before the president leaves office. where are they all going to go? >> excellent question. part of what's going on. i was on capitol hill yesterday meeting with some members of congress. this administration is actually bribeing people to take some of these folks that they are misappropriateing money appropriated by country to pay countries to take these guys off our hands because they're so bad. that's an excellent question. who do you give 100 folks the worst of the worse to and think they will behave nicely and reintegrate in society. this is a tough nut. with that said we're releaseing people who should either be lock locked up for life or put to death. two of the taliban five were materially involved in the attacks in 9/11. they should be at minimum, in prison for life. i don't understand how this administration this white house, is not only endangering the lives of our military men and women on the battlefield but doing things that goes against our principles which is holding people accountable for heinous acts. i don't understand it. >> you're not the only one. by my count, the donald took a dig at at least two govs today. this one, for stumbling, and this one for sweating? bush ain't talking to us but guess who is? rick ready to let her rip. ♪ ♪ hp instant ink can save you up to 50% on ink delivered to your door so print all you want and never run out. plans start at $2.99 a month. right now, buy an eligible printer and get three months of free ink with hp instant ink. available at participating retailers. the most affordable way to print. hp instant ink. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. i can tell you some of the candidates they went in they didn't know the air conditioner didn't work. they sweated like dogs they didn't know the room was too big because they didn't have anybody there. how are they going to beat isis? i don't think it's going to happen. >> now, i think the donald was talking about the gov, this gov as in former texas governor rick perry, who chose this dramatic if not safe tooling hot hangar on a typical dallas june day to announce his june run. he was sweating but it sure was a cool backdrop. that was the point, the cool message he was sending. what do you make of donald trump's reaction? >> well i'm not going to be running against any of those other candidates i'm going to be running for a very positive vision for this country. i'll let the donald do what the donald does but we're going to be focused on the real issues that americans care about and they care about how we get this country back working. having been the chief comprehensive of theexecutive of the 12th largest economy in the last 14 years and by all results, 1.5 million jobs created out there, i would think that would even impress the donald. >> he mayde the isis slap. by my memory here you and, i think, senator lindsey graham are the only veterans, a decorated captain in the air force. did you take umbrage to that like hello? >> i don't. i've been involved in this business for a long time and generally i try to stay focused on the positive side of things. taking the bait of someone who's wanting to be critical that's their choice. we have a great story to tell not only about how to get this country back working but obviously having the experience of not only having worn the uniform of this country but also having been the commander in chief of the texas military force, national guard, we've deployed them for massive hurricane hurricanes the events down on the border. obviously, how we dealt with ebola, all that executive experience i suggest to you is very very important as americans decide looking back over what will then be eight years of a young inexperienced united states states senator and the challenges he's had being able to deal with the economic issues and particularly the foreign policy issues we find ourselves in today. i think americans want this really experienced executive that also has military background and military experience. an individual with results. when you look at the state of texas, it's somewhere around the size economically of either canada or australia. what we did over the course of those last 14 years is not small potato potatoes. >> governor it wasn't that long ago chris christie was saying about his own experience to run for president that he has been combat ready for the white house. he was talking specifically about dealing with the legislature in the other party's hands. some took that to say he was trying to show his military gravitas. i think that was a bit of unfair characterization nevertheless do you think candidates should be very very careful in using language like that or even donald trump, in using language like he did with you? >> well i think a lot of americans know the differencetween someone who actually has combat experience or someone who's worn the uniform of the country. i know what chris was talking about. i understand, you know his bravado and having dealt with the folks that he deals with in new jersey. this is really going to be not a don't tell me show me election. as i said in my remarks, as we launched our campaign it's about what's your results? when have you led? don't tell me what you're going to do or thinking about, what's your real track record. what have you done? i will put my track record of job creation and dealing with issues. nobody gave me a manual and said here's how you deal with the space shuttle disintegrateing in east telecommunication and hurricanes -- east texas and nobody gave me the how-to manual how to deal with ebola or crisis on our border. all of that i suggest to you is invaluable experience couple that with your vorldworld view how you've been how you dealt with issues when you've been in this military as commander in chief, that starts building a resume the american people will say, you know what that's the kind of individual we need at the helm of this country at a most important time. >> the rap against you governor is you had a stumble when you came out, said you weren't feeling well at the time and weren't ready and even joked about it retrospect but you -- rarely do politicians get a second chance to make a first impression. how do you counter the notion that while people might support a governor with that executive experience and you do have an enviable track record talking about createing jobs all of that that the attention is shifted to the jeb bushs and scott walkers, how do you win voters hearing them and ignoreing you? >> well if the polls are any indication it's a wide open opportunity. nobody's got a lock on this and we're going to have debates, starting on the 6th of august. i look forward to standing on the stage with those individuals and having a good back and forth -- >> you hope to be in the top 10? you hope to make that top 10 right? >> absolutely. i feel very comfortable we'll be on the stage and talking about our positive vision for the future of this country. that's one thing, not only can we talk about it, we've actually done it as well. >> what about money? you and i got caught up in orlando when you were there for the economic summit of governors and rick scott and the idea in this day and age, think about it governor already governor bush will have about 100$100 million, which is five times the amount mitt romney had at this stage four years ago. i'm wondering how do you compete with that? you have a lot of money but you don't have that kind of money. >> well we'll have enough money to compete. i remind people i got outspent 4-1 in 2002 for governor. money is important to have enough but the idea is, you know if we'll just raise enough money we can buy the presidency of the united states americans aren't going to fall for that. never have and never will. >> looking at the economy right now, everything that's going on there are fears that the market is getting top heavy, the forgive federal reserve will raise interest rates, will you sep the markets are getting toppy and rates are going to rise and come around the campaign season we could be looking at an economy and market that starts tanking, that's a fear. how does a president perry address that? >> well you start right off the bat and you open up the xl and start doing everything you can to use the resources in north america and drive down that corporate tax rate to send a message we're going to be giveing incentives to manufacturers to come back. you lower the costs of electricity with the use of our natural resources here in north america and you couple those two together. you could have a very quick message sent not only are we going to have a better future but it will be an incredibly bright future with a manufacturing renaissance like we've never seen. that can happen in a very short period of time. i think it gives great comfort for those looking for places to invest in this country. >> governor do you think if you're not a governor or senator, having been one of those, or congress if you're donald trump and you're donald trump and you've just been a successful businessman but never held elective office at all that hurts you? >> well i think it's the full package is what you're looking for. listen carly fiorina is a very very capable ceo. i've negotiated weather her moving hewlett-packard to houston back in the mid 2000s. so everybody brings their talent to the table. but i think when you look at the full package, if you will who is it that's out there that's got the 14 years of experience of running the 12th largest economy in the world? nobody can stand on the stage and say that they've done that. nobody can say that during the most powerful recession since the great recession texas created 1.5 million jobs. it didn't happen by accident. it was because we put policies tax policies regulatory policies into place. nobody's going to be able to stand on the stage and say, you know what? all of that in the same package and he's also worn the uniform of the country. >> right. >> that's going to be a difficult thing for anybody to stand on the stage and say, you know what? yes but. >> governor i think that's what they call a slap back. governor rick perry, thank you, sir. very good seeing you. >> neil good to be with you, brother. god speed. in meantime do you think new york's crime spike is just a local problem? what if i told you it has now just become your problem. even if you never visit this fine city. to folks out there whose diabetic nerve pain... shoots and burns its way into your day, i hear you. to everyone with this pain that makes ordinary tasks extraordinarily painful, i hear you. make sure your doctor hears you too! i hear you because i was there when my dad suffered with diabetic nerve pain. if you have diabetes and burning, shooting pain in your feet or hands, don't suffer in silence! step on up and ask your doctor about diabetic nerve pain. tell 'em cedric sent you. audible safety beeping audible safety beeping audible safety beeping the nissan rogue with safety shield technologies. the only thing left to fear is you imagination. nissan. innovation that excites. new york city's problem just became a national one for taxpayers. because thanks to a spike in gun violence the nypd is now working with a federal agency to try to get it under control. former nypd mark novak says it's time the police departments get the tools they need to succeed. the immediate read we heard it's a failure on the part of the mayor to deliver the goods and protect new yorkers. you say it's not quite that black and white. >> i don't think it's that simple. i believe the police department has been hamstrung in the past six months to a year. i think what we're seeing now is a result of that. >> what are we going to see now? >> an increase in shootings, an increase in gun violence. >> who's coming in mark? is it federal? >> atf. alcohol tobacco and firearms. federal agency responsible for tracking -- >> they move different than police? >> they move different than police. they won't come in uniform and do patrol. a atf will take prosecution from the police department. if you're a felon, an individual convicted with two or more felonies the federal government would take you and prosecute you under federal guidelines for having an illegal firearm. >> that is an indictment on the police who have been watching crime go up in the city? >> no. this is something that's been around for a number of years. trigger lock has been in the city for a long time. the police department has always worked closely with federal agencies fbi, dea or atf. >> if you're taxpayer saying what in the heck am i doing paying for this in new york? >> it's done around the country. what they're doing here -- the tweaking that's going on here atf is going to be a little more aggressive in their prosecution and a little less selective in their taking. >> stop and frisk seem to be working? >> unfortunately stop and frisk seems to have been thrown out in whole. >> federal guys are going to do any better? >> i don't think they will. i don't think this is going to make a major impact to be quite honest. it will reduce some violence take some guns off the street and going to result in some increasingly longer sentences. overall i see this as a stopgap measure. unless the police warrant brings backstop and frisk constitutional since 1968 and zers it properly so there are not the abuse that is were complained about i don't think you'll see a significant die clean decline. >> that process is ongoing starting now and you're paying for it if you like it or not right now. good night. for the first time. neither is afraid. buy in. quickenloans/home buy. refi. power. oh no. who are you? daddy, this is blair he booked this room with priceline express deals and saved a ton. i got everything i wanted..... i always do. he seemed nice. attention. did you or anyone in your household work around asbestos-containing gaskets and packing? the garlock bankruptcy may affect your rights even if you do not presently have an asbestos-related disease. garlock's products were used in industrial and maritime settings, where steam, hot liquid or acid moved in pipes. certain personal injury claims must be filed by october 6, 2015. you may have a right to vote on garlock's plan to reorganize and pay claims. call 844-garlock or go to garlocknotice.com if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla apremilast. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your doctor about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. it's 5:00 in new york city and this is "the five." look out, politicians. the gop field just added a businessman to the list of presidential hopefuls. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am officially run ingning for president of the united states. and we are going to make our country great again! [ cheers and applause ] >> like him or not donald trump is

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20130226

>> thank you very much. i was thrilled to join this group of esteemed colleagues on an issue that is near and dear to my heart. some of you may know i have spent about 24 years in the senate trying to help ensure that americans had stable and affordable and decent housing. i will tell you the last 16 months, i have learned from my fellow commissioners a lot more in than i learned in the 24 years, plus what we heard from the people who came out for hearings. we know that millions of americans continue to do homeownership to be a part of the men in 10 american dream. with benefits will beyond the initial investment. american dream became the american nightmare when families homes were foreclosed upon, communities suffer, and financial systems experience great loss. we really exceed any consequences and now this might must not happen again. one of the best ways to help ensure families keep their homes is through housing counseling and financial education. for homeowners who have housing counseling which can help them identify options before they fall behind on their payments. through prepurchase counseling, families can gauge whether they are financially ready for homeownership and be better prepared to manage the financial burden of homeownership. we know that prepurchase works. the commission recommends refining research and collecting better data networks of agencies across the country. we also recommend continued federal support for housing counseling, as well as bringing in all of the parties who benefit to help pay for this program. it is critical as we continue to invest in housing and financial education to keep families in their homes and keep our neighborhoods safe in our states and our country is strong. next, as i'm sure that some of you know, i come from a very rural part of the state of missouri. one third of all americans live in rural america. yet rural america often struggles to have its voice heard. i will tell you the needs of rural america are important. they the many rural r%they makeo afford the many rural residents. in recognition of the unique needs in rural communities, the commission recommends that the rural housing programs remain at the u.s. department of agriculture, one agency dedicated to and present in rural america. he lived there, they know what the problems are, and the people there trust them. we also recommend extending the current definition of rural areas, to ensure that rural communities continue to have access to the system that rural housing programs can provide. we also urge that they be carefully examined and the operations be examined for modification. these programs are currently underfunded despite an impressive track record. they need, for example, a slightly more increased application process and the underwriting as well. we know it is a difficult time to talk about spending. these recommendations will be no small sum to jump. counseling and stable rule housing are important elements. with that, i turn it over to my good friend whom i was named by "the wall street journal" many years ago as the odd couple because of our ability to work across the aisle. when he was secretary and i was with him. [applause] >> thank you, senator. it's an honor to work with you again. in honor to work with the distinguished cochairs and this hard-working group of commission members, and i would like to particularly thank the staff lead overall of the bipartisan policy center and the housing commission in particular. this hard-working and capable of a group of people that i have ever seen working anywhere. i know that we all want to thank the macarthur foundation. which has played an extraordinary role in funding this, as well as other major policy and doubler's. julie was once the housing director for the city of chicago and has a special place in her life for it. so thank you, inc. you very much. i would also like to recognize jimmy camp who is here, who's head of the foundation was named for his father, who is the secretary of hud, who i have set in the past with a kind of good working definition of bipartisanship's. it was jack can buy himself. i'm not. [laughter] >> and jimmy was -- he attended the hearing that we had across the country, which were really important in gathering information from across the nation. we thank you in the foundation for your involvement. when the commission began its work, one of the first actions was to examine key demographic trends occurring across the country. an effective housing policy only responds to today's needs, but also anticipates those of the future. our nation is undergoing a profound transformation of society. we are becoming more likely to delay marriage and childbearing and more racially and met with many diverse. members of the echo boom generation, 62 million americans born between 1981 and 1995, they are now beginning to strike out and form their own new households. millions of baby boomers, on the other hand, are heading into their retirement years. the number of americans age 65 years old or older will rise from 40 million in 2010 of 290 million in 2060. during that time, the number of seniors aged 85 or older will more than triple from about 6 million today to about 20 million then. unfortunately, many of the homes and neighborhoods were designed at an earlier time before the demographic change was even recognized. for many seniors, their homes, whether rental or own, lacked the support system. likewise, many of our communities failed to provide the services and amenities to make aging in place a realistic choice. as a nation, we need to think creatively and strategically about the homes in which we live and issues such as health and longevity and the cost of caring for an aging population. in addition to this dynamic, by 2020, minority households are projected to constitute one third of all u.s. households. according to some estimates, hispanics will constitute nearly 50% of new households formed between 2010 and 2020. these demographic trends will impact housing demand and the types of housing that americans will need in the coming decade. the commission had these trends in mind as we look at the portability of rental housing. currently rent is rising in many regions of the country. the result is our lowest income renters are spending larger shares of their income on housing than ever before. rising rent has forced many households to choose spending less on health care or food or other essentials in order to cover the rental housing expenses. our nation's most honorable households, those with extremely low incomes of 30% or less, which is about $13,000 per person of one, $19,000 for a family of four, imagine living on that -- and they number more than 10 million households. in all, federal programs currently held only about one in four of households eligible for federal assistance. in some areas, this assistance is allocated through waiting lists that continue to grow. in analyzing this dilemma, the commission started from the premise that we need to do a better job with what we have in place today. as we are recommending a new performance-based system for delivering rental assistance and to evaluate success in achieving outcomes and improving housing quality and enabling elderly and persons with disabilities to live independent lives in greater economic self-sufficiency for households. this proposed system would dissolve responsibility as well as ward high-performance housing providers with extent of the regulations and greater freedom to innovate and departing from standard practices and rules. substandard providers, on the other hand, would be the subject to competitive processes and possible replacements. it also recommends channeling resources to serve the most vulnerable households. reformed outcomes oriented voucher program that serves the lowest incomes households at 30% of the median income and would work replace the current lottery system. the commission believes it is appropriate to target assistance for the household at the lowest end of the income scale. we recognize this shrinks the pool of eligible beneficiaries, but it has been our judgment that this trade-off is worth making because it means a greater number of the most honorable households would be able to access the help that they require. instead of spreading resources across persons below 80% of median income, only woman for being able to access that assistance on a haphazard basis, the commission recommends targeting more greatly at 30%, so 100% of those folks are able to get the help they need. the commission also recommends the availability of short-term emergency assistance between 30 and 80% of income. people who are in danger of losing a job have lost it at wage issues and others that have pushed them into comic business, programs that would help. with rental demand increasing in many areas of the country, there is an urgent need to increase the supply of suitable and affordable rental housing, as well as to stabilize and preserve the existing housing stock, including the investment that we already make in public houses. the commission recommends preserving and expanding the low income housing tax credit by 50% over current funding levels. the commission is fully aware of our nation's difficult fiscal situation. we are all familiar with the nine letter word sequester. we recognize that any proposal for increased spending must be offset, either by reductions in federal outlays, savings from system reforms, the adoption of new revenue sources, or combination of these various approaches. the commission also recognizes that a transition of some length will be necessary before recommendations can be implemented. these proposals focus on where we want to go over a longer period of time. tax incentives also exist for home ownership. in the ongoing debate over tax reform and budget priority, the commission recommends consideration of modifications of some of these incentives to allow for increased support for affordable rental housing. the great recession started in the housing sector. the housing sector is critical to the economy and the full recovery. a new housing finance system performed the rental program and the more effective use of resources are all essential to putting this country on a sustainable path forward. we are now pleased to take any questions, first from the press, if you have a question, please raise your hand and a member of the staff will bring a microphone to you. before you ask your question, please identify yourself, including the organization that you might represent. i would be happy to refer the question to my fellow cochairs, members of the commission, and whoever may be appropriate to answer those questions. >> thank you. >> this gentleman over here, please. >> hello, i am wondering if you could maybe explain a little detailed the proposal for performance-based subsidies in the rental housing area. >> i think the emphasis is to focus on outcomes of the housing programs by a series of measures that would include things like self sufficiency outcomes for residents themselves. so that is one set of measures. outcomes for residents. and the efficiency of housing providers themselves so that we can know that we are focusing on the best providers and those that are not measuring this will be subject to competitive things. if anyone would like to add a thought, please. >> i think one of the things that we discussed extensively i see the mayor, here in the audience who has made it clear to us that the prescriptive rules and regulations written by hard require a lot of time and effort to write them. they require a lot of time and effort to read them. they require a lot of time and effort to fill out the reports. but no one really looks at are you delivering good housing. either public housing or other voucher supported housing. we satiate her. get rid of the prescriptive rules. start setting some performance standards. in conjunction with the state and local entities who really know what the needs are and can judge it and make the decisions on funding based on the performance. >> members of the commission may want to add a word. renée is the award-winning director of the atlanta housing authority, which to my knowledge is the first housing authority in the country to have demolished all the old-style tradition public housing and replace it with this housing. she wins every award there is to win in the field. would you like to add a thought here? >> thank you. i think that it is really about the quality and we talk about better schools and low-impact areas in terms of this and those types of things. by giving the opportunity for that to actually find the problem, it will yield better outcomes. >> are there any other better questions? >> system and over here? >> hello, i'm just i am just wondering if the commissioners talked at all about very valuable housing stock. about $29,000 for a year average. this is largely unsubsidized. i'm just curious if there has been any attention paid to try to preserve that so that we don't continue to add to the roles of people waiting to get into subsidized manufactured housing. >> the commissioner is the one who raised it and i will ask him to come in a second. both in the home ownership section in the rental section speaks to new approaches. shared equity, strategies and efforts to support the existing stock of manufactured housing and innovative and new approaches that allow for innovative building materials and affordability in workable wages. would you like to say were? >> thank you. as the commission dealt with a wide range of possible issues in the report and manufactured housing is one we have highlighted in a couple of other sections, and we think it deserves a lot more investigation. we have highlighted the lack of long-term fixed-rate financing. many owners, especially with when they are on leases, the difficulty that means and the lack of access to the most affordable mortgage and what important resource it is. so i would just like to say this is one of the areas that we highlighted as being very important beyond the scope of what we were able to get into. we have highlighted it for this purpose and we are grateful that you brought it up. >> it does not require investment is working through zoning and other restrictions that make this difficult to place. it would be a great boon for affordability if it could be added even in medium size issues like that. since it focuses on rule of approaches -- >> if it is the best way, rolled on out. >> there is a question right over here. >> when he delivered deliberations, did you consider what would hold mortgage service rights, given some of the regulations that are coming out as part of the financial institutions? >> there is something that speaks to the various roles in the proposed system from origination to credit enhancement and other steps. the emphasis would be on centralization of those activities from the president centralized system to private sector financial institutions. let me see if senator martinez would like to pay a word about that or any commissioner who would like to speak further about this. >> i wish necklace here today. he is a man on the subject and he couldn't be here. but rob is. and you might want to put your thoughts into this. >> this is a system that has been emphasized. the government position is a last-place guarantor. we speak to that and i think there needs to be some confusion on the issue as well. i was a partial small regulator of the gse during my time at hud. it is clear that more regulation needed go to the system. as much as we would look at how we might play this, it did not occur. the implied guarantee, which was always hanging there, when a crisis hits, there is no question that it was going to be a guarantee. no matter what happens, whether considered too big to fail or whatever, there ought to be a way in which we could have a clear-cut right now guaranteed by the government. after the credit enhancement and everything else has gone first, including catastrophic risk outcome. in addition to that, that is something that we look for, it can also be funded. there could be a portion of that going towards funding. the government has to step in. it would not be doing so out of the appropriated dollars but out of this fund would be set aside for this very purpose. the participation of the private sector entity, we hope to create a very competitive environment in which all players can participate. >> the guarantor of clear, if you will. the private sector participants, if you will. that looks like a broader range of. >> and there would be a look at capitalizations make sure that we have sufficient capital standards. and we would make sure that we are dealing with entities that can to fill the role appropriately. with that, unlike u2, and a little further. >> the pages are roughly 56 to 62 or so, they spell out the specifics of the different financial players in the proposed system. >> rob is from alabama and former president of the mortgage bankers association. >> well, the only other thing i would add is that we do endorse the concept of national service and standards and we also mentioned the complications that were made and we also go back to the fundamental principle that when you take a mortgage, you have a legal and moral obligation to repay it regardless of the property value. >> governor? >> governor keating is president of the american bankers association. >> as a postscript to what some of my colleagues have said, i'm not trying to suggest that the public guarantor would be that repairman and be called upon, but depending on how qualified mortgage and qualified rule is defined, that 43% of debt to income issued, it may well mean that a lot of people would say this has been satisfied, why do i need another insurance policy, in this case, from uncle sam. so we have watched that middleground effectively, encouraging the reintroduction in the aggressive reintroduction of the private sector in this process. >> it is clear that the country needs a secondary mechanism. it is also clear the one we have that freddie and fannie have not worked well. therefore, we can have a balanced system that needs to be merged. something that puts the taxpayer in a less vulnerable position. that is what we have stood for, and hopefully in the spirit of this center, bipartisan center, we will strike a chord with democrats and republicans left and right as a way to rebuild that housing finance is iraq is important to note that our proposal, unlike others is a great transitional periods of time. to take us from the current system to future system. so it won't be a radical or dramatic change. we know the need for the fragile recovery to continue. this would be bringing down the loan limits that currently the gse utilizes. in order for them to allow more space for the private sector. in the gse to continue to become more competitive. it's a very important. lack of time for us to get to where we need to be. >> a question for this gentleman over here? >> i am from the hispanic real estate professionals. last year there was a loss of approximately 800,000 households, mainly among white and black households. at the same time i'm there was an increase of about half a million households among asians and hispanics, the majority. could you talk about the implications for these demographic trends? >> the commission, early on, focus on demographic changes in the country. we are a rapidly changing country, and among the two most important of those realities is the aging of traditional populations on one side and a growth of minority populations where they become a truly meaningful part of formations and demand for housing. it is hard to imagine a housing sector going forward with private housing that doesn't include in major ways the dynamic of minority growth for asians and hispanics. it spends considerable time in the introductory chapters that deal with demographics and homeownership, as well as the chapters that deal with rental and a platform to prepare people for eventual homeownership. the cocoa .. i think that's a really important part of this conclusion. >> i will just add again if you look at those demographics, they are hard to ignore. you highlighted the point that led the year 2020, 50% of homebuyers, first-time homebuyers will be hispanic and for us another demographic that we focused on is that every year for the next 25 years, 900,000 american citizens who are hispanic will turn 18 years of age. you are seeing the demographic way that is coming. they will be very interested in looking at not only having access but affordable housing opportunities. for us homeownership, part of that has been getting great counseling service. i know with senator bond support we have had a very successful effort to provide counseling and what we have found is when people get that objective advice in terms of their housing options, they can be successful. having great underwriting rates and having an opportunity to get a 30-year mortgage in getting that counseling is really will make us most successful and we want to keep track of their peers be we want to keep that in place for the future. from the business perspective at radey is a member of our commission and he is a homebuilder and an officer of the national association of homebuilders. he may have a thought on the connection between demographic trends and the business side. >> thank you henry. i think what we articulate in their research showed that homeownership is still a majority of the people are still inspired to homeownership and so the cultural side of homeownership benefits from the socioeconomic, the education and the crime rates and the wealth building all highlighted in the research and in our homeownership section we highlighted the value of homeownership. as we suggest the excess ability as a homebuilder, the excess ability to mortgages is really, the affordability has been great because the interest rates are low but the excess ability to financing has been hurt. the pendulum has swung way too far and it's even more exaggerated in the minority community with access to credit which is a huge population growth and opportunity for homebuilders, the homeownership possibility in america so we highlighted that in the report. >> let's see, i'm trying to swing from side to side in the room. we will come back over your in a moment but let's take someone over here. yes. >> rob zimmer community lenders in america community banks originate and my members fear too big to fail banks which dominate the primary mortgage market will over time dominate the secondary as well and it will take the balance sheet to achieve economies of scale and so can you please allay the fears of my small mortgage members? >> bob would you like to say a word about that? >> the report goes on at some length to devise a system that is very decentralized and speaks to community banks, credit unions and a whole different mix of institutions that will participate as originators in various roles by rob you are a designer so please. >> i couldn't have said it any better. good job. [laughter] we understand the concern. we went to a great deal of trouble i think to stress throughout the design of the system that it should be open to a wide variety of players if you will and particularly in the credit risk or the assumption of credit risk. we were fairly agnostic as to whether not the credit risk would be covered by mortgage insurance company carpet -- capital market solutions but we did want to make it available as possible. so we hear you. that is one of the reasons we went to the ginnie mae model if you will where issuers, broad range of issuers and the credit enhancers, we made sure that those who are providing credit enhancement are in a monoline fields. it could ea subsidiary and a large institution but the entity that provides the credit risk enhancement would have to be in a monoline situation only insuring mortgage credit risk. >> senator bond would like to add something. >> we heard a lot from the community bankers at our regional hearing in st. louis and elsewhere and i live among community bankers. there is one thing i am personally convinced of and that is if it's a fair playing field, the community bank is in much better shape to meet the needs of the potential borrowers and the banking clients in their community but right now they are telling us ,-com,-com ma there is not so much too big to fail. their wording about the cost of dodd-frank which would require hiring a staff of people to fill out the paperwork and they think that the big banks can do that better. we would hope congress would look at that. there are a number of other things in the regulatory area that are bad. they're they are very much afraid that this would impact, if they carried -- if it's carried further it may make it too dangerous for community banks to get in the game. so if congress will look at what the real needs are in the banking sector and perhaps make it a lot easier for community banks, we would certainly like to see them try it. it isn't what i hear too big to fail. it's the too small to compete with regulators. take a look at the material, the gentleman who asked the question, that begins on page 53 or so of the report that really spells out the scale and the size and the hope that this can reach very deeply into participating institutions. you you have a thought on this question? barriers with the consumer federation. see i just want to second what rob said and make the point that this question of access and affordability of credit is a strong theme in the report as the whole callout in the section on housing finance which i recommend to you and consumers of all types in all and all places to have four and a portable access to credit through the whole system and also for lenders of all types and sizes everywhere not to be discriminated against in the operation of the guarantee. this is one of the roles we envision the public guarantors will have to take on to ensure the system that they are overseeing and guaranteeing does not in fact lead to discriminatory to -- discriminatory outcomes. i don't think any of us claim we have every detail of that work out but we have made a strong statement that the system will not be successful if it does not lead to that outcome. >> by my watch its 12:05 and we are slated to go to 12:16. i would like to ask nan roman if she could put thoughts together and i would like you to call on her because in the question and answer session we have focused on one of the housing finance and also the demographics which are two of the major major points of this report but a third is that which deals with assorted retargeting of rental to the most needy and then more than anyone on the commission also very and janet and others have played a major champion role in assuring that they could help in nan if you would in a moment. we will take one more question than come to you. this gentleman had his hand up for a long time. and then we will come back to you if we can. >> thank you henry. mark willis new york university center for real estate policy. i would like to switch to the rental side just for a minute here. we have talked a lot about homeownership and on the rental side with talk about government programs and we will talk more about them but as i think the commissions i am sure know the majority of property are small rental buildings privately owned and not government-subsidized in any direct way. i wonder what up the commission is head with regard to preserving the importance of this major part of our affordable rental stock? >> a good question and the commission did work on that thanks to gary dickinson's intervention. would you like to take the lead in talking about the provision that you lead led us to include? >> thanks for the question. this is an area we do address in the report although again i don't think with any magic solutions but we make that very clear point that this section of the rental economy is not well served by long-term finance and hasn't been successfully served by gses in their prior -- currently and this remains an important source of affordable housing. >> ladies and gentlemen on television dag have -- >> i thought i was answering your question. we do make the point that this sector of the rental economy and as mark mentioned smaller properties including single-family properties that are rented as a critical source of affordable housing and this is in one way and one of the major links between the finance section of the report in the rental housing section of the report. the focus is on the market failure that makes us so hard for low income tenants to afford the economic cost of these properties and the problems of higher cost and the owners of the property at the margin because they can't get access to the most affordable mortgage products in the recommendations we have is the lowest income. as henry said to read prior days and expand what the government invest in the rental housing infrastructure by helping to support market demand by these renters is one of the most fundamental linkages between the two parts to this report. >> would you like to add? >> in the general secretary of the rental recommendations. any other commissioner? bruce, janet and whoever else would like to say word about this. about this. see i would just say that the commission was very concerned about meeting the needs of the lowest income renters. i think that was reaffirmed last week when the hard figures came out and showed the largest increase in worst-case housing needs by 20%, increasing by 20% between 2009 in 2011. the recommendation really is the most vulnerable people people under 30% of median income and homeless people. to prioritize meeting that need. there does involve a variety of suggestions made about how that would be financed in a constrained -- period of constrained spending but the commission all of us have a strong commitment to meet those needs at a time we were only making a meeting a quarter of them to build a platform under people who are full of bull and ensure that they can continue to contribute. >> does the commissiocommissio ner wish to speak to this? >> i certainly would. nan has been a champion of age for the homeless and assisting the homeless for a long time and one thing she is pointed out that three reference in the report is the necessity to have social services provided with the housing. it's not enough to provide a shelter. i large number of the homeless require services whether it's jobs counseling, education, babysitting. that is the critical element and the commission report has -- the need to link services with housing and i would just add one thing on the professor's comment on rural housing. too often the federal government, if you take a look at housing 50 units or more, and arra area you are one of 49 or a lot fewer. this is where i think a greater emphasis number one on state and local decisions can help make sure that there are -- the housing needs of the people in the smaller communities in a four unit apartment house would be adequately met and require community banks who are willing to reach out and make the loans and they ally h. dc-8, the state run ally h. dc-8's can target resources to help construct or rehab for homes for the needy in the small areas. >> bruce would like to say a word, for formerly the head of the -- bank system and a former congressman from connecticut. >> thank you. i don't want to see anything different from what my colleagues said. the rental assistance recommendations are not by any means limited to the homeless and they are about not just people who don't work but a large part of our population who work full-time and earn very little. so 30% of median income which is close to the poverty line represents coverage of people who are very poor but trying very hard. the targeting we are talking about is focusing our assistance on ending the lottery that we currently have where we promise it will help people up to 80% of median and we deliver one in four. that really is the acceptable way to run a government of graham so we have to make tough choices and these are very tough choices but at least we have to deliver what we promise and that is the targeting of the 30% of the median and it means mostly helping people secure private housing. this is assistance that is not mostly government-owned housing but private housing and that is where most of the housing is. we need to make it more affordable. >> we will take someone someone from the side and then i promise the lady back over here. if we can get it in the next five minutes. yes, maam. >> i represent retired professionals and those that remain passionate about housing. when i started my career fannie and freddie were created at the secondary market to incentivize private lenders to lend to people who normally wouldn't be eligible for housing finance, and so now that you are recommending that their fee private sector banks taking on greater risk ,-com,-com ma they are not even fixing the problem that exists today, trying to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. how do you think that's going to work? i just don't get it. >> well i think we tried to focus on the elements that are keeping banks from being able to help today, credit and the environment that exist today and made suggestions about stabilizing their regiment of rules that the banks work with them so that they can get back to lending and then involving the banks in a meaningful way in a system that includes as was stated repeatedly hear the government guarantor standing as a last resort guarantor. an integrated system and a balance system in which the rules are well established and should allow for liquidity in the credit market. that is the belief that we operate from. we believe the government guarantor on the backend that the liquidity -- and it takes the securitizing market to bring that about however doesn't take a government-sponsored enterprise in order to achieve the goals we are talking about. in fact i recall statistics that showed fannie mae was not eating there goals. they were landing to a whole different spectrum the people and for them to be lending -- alone with 700,000 or something in that neighborhood? that is not giving -- getting at the poverty level. here's something else to consider. tanks don't just operate in a vacuum. the qm ruled just came out in the qm rule is by itself going to create an environment where it is difficult for the financial institutions to be made into those who may fall outside so when you think about that is qm going to broaden the pool of people that become part of the mortgage or is it going to constrain its? i am not sure which way it's going to work but i think you m. is going to play significasignifica nt role in determining how banks react to broadening the base to those whom they land and because of the reaction to the crisis, 20% down payment, fica score 700, these are things that will have to do some point become more competitive and we expect financial institutions to meet the needs so consider that in their light of qm and that is the complicatcomplicat ed complexity of the current system. >> -- at a point in barry does as well. >> one of the points we heard throughout the regional meetings is the uncertainty and the marketplace in the industry in the qm or solve some of that in some of the legislation, this thing isn't going to take care of itself and the message from the commission and some of the report is let's move this thing forward and get something results of the uncertainty isn't there with the financial institutions. from the guy on the street, part of the reason they are not playing in the game right now is because they don't know the risks so what we try to define here is a process that would help to find those risks of people in the private sector as well as the government backing would allow people to get into the marketplace and understand the risks and hopefully that takes care some of that. >> barry would you like to say something and i promised one person back here. >> for those who are not policy wonks like those of us here have resigned to become this qm ruled that we have references really about congressional directions that lenders that future should only make loans that they have a reasonable expectation to pay. the commission endorsed the principle that debts are meant to be repaid them a couple that with an admonition that lenders should lend responsibility for sustainable purposes. those two together is what is led to those qualified mortgage role but your question seems more about why would people become risktakers and is the commission word about this? we consulted a lot of people might believe going forward in some of the underlying barriers of homeownership and rental housing acquisitions begin to fade. there is an appetite for taking those credit risk. it will probably mean consumers pay more than they were accustomed to paying in the past but that is the price for a stable and sustainable sustainable system and we will have to wait and see how much more it turns out to be. we believe based on the work that we did that it will not be too much and will enable many people to access affordable credit. >> a final question over here. i didn't recognize you but i am glad i called on you. sheila crowley heads -- the national low-income housing. >> i want to commend the commission for its focus on the housing problems of the senior low-income renters which gets worse and worse every year as -- [inaudible] and appreciate the emphasis on trying to get assistance to all of those folks. i wondered if you could operationalize that a bit for us about how exactly that might happen and in the report and in their remarks today we have heard that doing that would take some time. could you tell us what that period of time might be? >> there are a couple of pages i would refer you to an airport. one is page 105 that looks at the things we recommended and what they cost. so the first step in operationalizing to try to mandate and identify what are the costs recommended, that is an important part of the report and speaks to the recognition. it was a major theme in the report in the commission's work. we weren't just going to put up numbers without indicating how they would be paid for and whether it's within the context of fiscal responsibility as we recognize it is today so the first step in operationalizing it is to identify whether the costs associated with increasing the low-income housing tax credit with rental assistance and targeting as was suggested and get financing for low-income housing tax credit etc.. the second page i would refer you to is one page 107 which looks at the current distribution of tax expenditures for both owner and rental and appropriations ownership and rental. and again the report attempts to at least lay out the path for thinking about how this rebalancing might occur. after that operationalizing i think need specific changes in specific programs, changing the regulatory structure for public housing, focusing on this notion of outcome based criteria and providers competitive structures for providers to be efficient as possible etc. so i hope at least at the beginning of setting out the path towards operationalizing. are there any co-chairs or members of the commission at this point, anyone? yes, renée. >> i was just going to add that clearly this is important and the ability -- oh sorry. i am not ignoring you. this is an important issue and the point that we talked about in terms of a performance-based system and having greater flexibility at the local level problems because there is a correlation between cost and regulatory structure. i think there is a lot of current momentum about getting the resources closer to the need and operationalizing it will really be about adopting those core principles. i think the report is very strong on the importance of outcome, better housing and better locations so that families can thrive and move on to homeownership. >> thank you renée. are there any commissioners who would like to add a word lex we have called on most but not everyone has had a chance to add a thought. is there anyone else who would like to say something? yes sir, rob. now if professor at the harvard business school and fha commissioner in the clinton years was certainly one of the most value for players on the commission. i also want to note the presence of former secretary of hud alphonso johnson -- off onto jackson and if you would please stand and let us recognize you. [applause] it's my honor to turn the podium back to senator george mitchell. >> six years ago when howard baker tom daschle and i came together to establish the bipartisan policy center through the initiative of jason coombe may, we were dismayed at the extent to which our political process appeared to be in gridlock as a consequence of excessive partisanship and ideological posture. that concern remains and it is heightened today. and american politics has been rough. i frequently cite the example of the presidential campaign of 1800, when jefferson supporters called president adams a hermaphrodite lacking they said the strength of a man or the gentleness of a woman. adam supporters responded that the murder rape and robbery would be taught and openly practice in our country. it was rough we thought when we were there but it has gotten much rougher and tougher today. we at the bipartisan policy center and the members of this commission believe that it is possible for men and women with strongly held different link political philosophies to come together in good faith to try to deal in a responsible way through principled compromise with the major problems facing our nation. one of our objectives is simply to demonstrate the american people to political officials and the country that it can be done. there are 21 members of this commission. if each of the 21 had offered his or her report it's almost a certainty that no two would have been alike and no one of them would have been identical to the report that the commission eventually agreed upon. we don't resent this is a piece of legislation. that will require action by congress and the administration. we present it as a set of ideas and principles with sufficient details giving content that amazing that many decisions will have to be made through the legislative and political process. but we do present it as an example of what can be done in our country and what our country now desperately needs. it is an approach that says you don't have to leave your principles outside the door. come inside and make a reasonable compromise that is best for the country. we can be strong partisans and yet we are all americans and we all want to do what's best for the country. thank you all very much for coming and we look forward to working with you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] governors from connecticut wisconsin and tennessee weighed in on the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that are set to take effect march 1 at an event held last week. governors dan malloy scott walker and bill haslam were guests at politicos state solution conference. other topics included gun control and immigration reform. this is 90 minutes. >> we are joined by governor dan malloy from the nutmeg state of of --. >> the wailers, the people that worked on the whaling ships. >> i shouldn't have brought that up but to pass the time they took up carving and to make money they carved not make and then they would go to port and sell them as if it was not make when all it was was carved wood, hence the name. it's not a nice term. i do not carve wood to look like nutmeg and try to sell it. >> while i apologize. governor thanks so much for taking the time today and i first wanted to extend our condolences for the losses that your state suffered in december at newtown. i thought we would start there because it's been a big part of your life since mid-december. the vice president was in the state i believe in danbury and he used that opportunity to roll out some proposals. do you want to talk about that for minute? >> i'm happy to. first of all the ongoing tragedy which i am absolutely convinced has changed the tenor of our discussion in the united states about what to do about gun violence and clearly what we want to do is have a safer state and so i did roll out a pretty comprehensive list of things that i believe should be included in the legislation including banning the future sale of assault weapons and defining them in a way that the nra can't drive a truck through. everybody knows what an assault weapon is and yet this is -- misses lance was able to go into connecticut store and buy that weapon. that weapon was an assault weapon, let there be no doubt about it. if i showed it to you no one would argue that case except the state where we had an assault weapons ban since 1994 didn't cover it so we are going to end that. we are going to prohibit private sales unless there is a dealer involved or someone who can run the background check. there is a whole bunch of other things in their that are quite comprehensive and i hope the legislature moves the package soon, sooner rather than later. obviously there are a lot of other things it will have to be addressed and the commission that i have charged them with other specifics. >> at the same time you said you want to see federal action too but government here in washington that they passes and expanded background check. that would not have stopped in adam lanza but is the federal government falling short on this issue? >> sure it is. we have a workable plan. we had a size limitation and in 2004 when it needed to be renewed it was not renewed so yeah clearly is that a lot of people down in the nation and as far as back round checks, when you go up and down 95 and you can do it in philadelphia and you can do in new york city and bridgeport new haven and stanford for that matter, you find a handgun that's been on the street and the last place it can be traced to more often than not it's florida or virginia which allows the sale so we would never allow. people buy them and put them in the back of their car and drive them up the street in their communities and sell them out of the back of their cars. we do need that election but the lack of federal action can't be an excuse particularly in my state and what we have been through to not get this thing right. >> the vice president give an indication when he was in your state about the prognosis for federal action? did he indicate that a limitation on the size of magazines is still a possibility >> i think he believes in the possibility. i think there is a growing consensus around the issue of background checks at the federal level. i think there is hope and i think he is hopeful that guns will -- assault weapons will be limited but i think you've got it. and on the state level, a sweeping gun control bill to your desk pretty soon? >> actually i wanted to move in that direction. i think we need to move in that direction and so i did anticipate as of yesterday but i think we we are good to get the. >> to stay on the topic of federal and state relations, march 1 is coming pretty soon and that is when the automatic cuts would go into effect. from the federal government. you obviously have a large base and contractors surrounding that and pratt whitney, large federal contractors and ge basting connecticut. but with the impact be of the sequester interstate? >> you have got to figure out the republicans serving in the congress are routinely doing everything they can to defeat the recovery. they did it in 11 on a crazy debate about whether we were going to pay our debt. they did it in december on a crazy debate about going over the cliff which they did, and then they are doing it again right now and they will do it again on a debt question and they will do it again. every step of the way what they are really doing is kicking the middle class of america in the teeth. and having said that you know, at some point you have got to think they are going to stop hitting their own hand with a hammer because it's just not working. >> what is the actual impact on your state if it happens? >> 750,000 jobs spread throughout the united states and that is not my estimate or the democrats estimate. it's the congressional budget office. so our share of the 750 i think is more heavily weighted towards us but we will have to start furling national guard. we have party scene with the defense cut back in december due to the economy and now magnified several times over. this is real bad stuff. we are notifying municipalities today of what the impact we believe these cuts will have in their budget. a lot of this comes out of title i and urban education systems rely on that money. >> you and the other democratic governors went to the white house before you came there this afternoon. did you feel a sense of urgency from the president that his role in sequester to make sure this doesn't happen? >> the president again does feel a sense of emergency but the president is also frustrated. would you deal with? the speaker can cut a deal and go back to the caucus and sell it. mcconnell can make a deal and go back and be guaranteed if sufficient votes and neither one of them is willing to cut people lose to do what they would otherwise do. you know when lindsey graham and john mccain are saying that this is really crazy stuff, you know that there are people in the senate in the house that get it and want to avoid it. anybody on the defense side. everybody knows we have got to trim our sails but at least we should allow a secretary to make those decisions as opposed to this crazy across-the-board. >> governor, talking about the budget issue, your state is facing a budget deficit. you had to raise taxes in your state to sort of meets that budget deficit. what is the way forward for governors in this country who are facing similar scenarios and in other states that is not tenable. is this some kind of a mix of spending cuts and tax increases? >> i was the first democrat elected governor in 24 years, the first to serve in 20 years. the outgoing governor handed me a deficit on the same services budget larger on a per capita basis than any state in a nation representing 17% of revenue so there was no way out of it and quite frankly there was no way to tax your way out of it. we had to re-stacker relationship with their state employees and we did all of those things. so much so that i'm respecting our relationship with our employees we have $21.5 billion in savings over a 20 year period of time. combine that with the fact that i put in generally acceptable accounting vegetables and we are able to pay her pension obligations earlier than might predecessors negotiated, that will save us another $5.8 billion. so we are in excess of $26 billion saved over 20 of period of time. yes we raise taxes by over a billion dollars per year but we actually cut more out of the budget. i think a reasonable approach is what people have to take. we have to live within our means and we will balance its budget this budget and i've given the legislature plan to balance it without raising taxes. [inaudible] >> its graphic is met? >> raising taxes, making some tough cuts won't bode well for the approval ratings in your state or any state. are you concerned about 2014 given what you have to do in connecticut? >> connecticut? >> i spent a lot of time picking about a quite frankly. i've got a job to do and i don't want to be a politician that is doing things for the short-run. i was lucky enough to be 14 years the mayor of stanford and every day we work not on tomorrow but well into the future and i think that we will get credit at some point for the hard work that we have done and we will cut through the rector at that is around that. >> speaking of of the future education is a passion appears the future education of the passion of yours and you have been one of those democratic governors that has been a reformer on the issue that has caused some unease amongst the ranks of your state teachers. talk to me generally about your experience but also the way ahead. do you think your party is going to become generally as a party more invested in education reform to the nea for example? >> i think i have a lot to say about the subject. first of all i think arne duncan is a gifted leader and inspired secretary of education was done more than any other secretary of education who has ever served. i think this administradministr ation has taken a lot of very good and strong positions and they are starting to pay off. i think democrats have got to find a way to lead these discussions. there's a certain reality in america that 90% of our children are going to be educated in public education. that's the reality and yet in a place like connecticut which is very has very high achievement levels on average, we have the largest gap between high achievers and low achievers. we have high achievement but that doesn't get to places like new haven and bridgeport and where 40% of children fail to get a high school diploma. >> is a socioeconomics? >> is related to socioeconomics but if you are pulling that as an excuse the answer is no. that's not an excuse. you can draw it on a homeownership line or racial line or family in mind that you can mine but you can also draw to long belinda quite frank he we know what works in education. we have enough models out there that tell us you can educate literally anybody but we are more likely to replicate our failures than our successes and every time there is fast and education people run around trying to explain why that's not applicable. it is applicable but what we need to do is replicate those experiences. >> the teachers, should they be more of a partner in this effort yorkie think, in your experience they fiercely opposed what you are trying to do. >> yeah but in the end we got a package and they got a package that the secretary described as the most comprehensive single reform package passed in the united states so it was a pretty tough one and some elbow's were thrust but at the end of the day we got what we needed and now we have to implement the heck out of it. >> let me ask about your state and your neighbors because i was struck by a piece in "new york times" on connecticut. he talked to you recently and governor you said mehmet governor of new york off smith who is not in the emperor of new york and he ran through names roosevelt dewey rockefeller and cuomo. why don't you fm per governor's? >> the point i was making was and this is true of mayors as well, each jurisdiction has a style that they are comfortable with and new york is one of those places that wants a big and bold, i use the term -- it wasn't meant to be per jordan. that's what they want but other states don't want that. >> what does connecticut want? >> i don't think they wanted emperor and i think for many years connecticut was comfortable with governors who didn't try to do a lot. that is what i'm trying to change. i don't want to the emperor but i want to get a lot done. we have to balance the budget and we need to take on job production and job growth. we need to take on educational pre-k-12. we need to reform a higher education and do something about the long-term basis of training a workforce in precision manufacturing because we are reaching out to machine is more readily than any other state. we fail to grow jobs at a time when 23 million jobs were split between 48 states and our state. >> for a long time and you mentioned this, for a long time your state which obviously is a liberal liberal leaning states and republican governors to hartford and something of a check on the democratic way chair. we saw the same thing in providence and in boston. this half bends often in new england. others say that his change and loss figures. talk for a minute about the impact of what that has been politically and hartford. has that created tension with the speaker of the house used to getting his way? the party leader? >> i think what happened in connecticonnecti cut over a period of time is the legislature decided to take on a policy role and administrative role because there were governors who didn't like politics and didn't like the administration so they have a responsibility. i on the other hand have been a chief executive for 14 years of the city and now two years as governor. i know the direction i'm trying to leave the state and so is there? are there things that need to change? hopefully i'm getting better at working with them and they are getting to mail me a little bit better. but also we are not limited period of time where we had five natural disasters declared and we have big sandy hook and the largest per capita deficit in the nation. we have the achievement gap in the nation. and we fail to grow jobs for 22 years. those are pretty big issues and and -- >> governor let's talk politics. you were in washington for the nga and both parties are here obviously. obviously you had some tough things to say about your contra part in our public and party but republicans do have more governors now than the dummit crab stew. -- than the democrats do. do you see 2014 is an opportunity for your for your party too i guess correct what happened in 2010 where you had back lash towards president obama? >> yeah. i certainly represent that opportunity. hopefully we will. you are going to have some governors here later today. you might want to ask him about it. i think it's going to be competitive and i think we will have competitive candidates in the state just as i'm sure they will come after me. republicans will come after me and we think we have picked them up. >> you've mentioned some of your favorite governors previously. who is your favorite republican governor? >> i guess i can say that. you are going to have the governor governor of tennessee in later and i've a lot of respect for him. maybe part of that is that we have both been mayors. >> double trouble. >> i think he has done important work and he was the guy you have to implement an evaluation system for teachers. it very hard thing to do and he got it done. >> we would like to take some questions over the internet with this system. it's not working out too well for me so lets to questions from the audience. anyone here in the audience have a question that they want to ask the governor of connecticut or a federal policy? >> yes, sir. >> the question relates to immigration. what is your vantage point about potential revenue streams and expanding the program? i am sure you have heard quite a bit about the travel and revenue sheets coming in. i suspect you he supported but what can you at the governor's level to to encourage that? >> i think the president is doing the right thing and there are people of goodwill that would like to resolve this issue and then there's the congress of the united states and specifically the house. i'm not holding my breath. i will do everything i can. i hope they will do it on a conference of basis. if they are unwilling to do compress the bases i hope they will do the commonsense thing. when we give a doctrine to somebody at yale or yukon from poland we should give them a green card. we should do the same thing for masters and if it's in thus them we don't have the talent we need to grow our economy the way we want to grow it and yet we are not doing common sense things. i had that debate in davos a year ago with a republican congressman from california and he knows we need to do it but they are free to have the conversation. >> eyes that? >> yeah, darryl issa. >> governor the issue of same-sex marriage. president obama lester said he was supportive of it. you have been there and done that. >> we have moved well beyond that. we took a step towards civil union as an interim step. i'm convinced if we hadn't done that our supreme court would not have said --. >> why? >> we were out in front of this thing and i think the supreme court needed to understand that the world did not come to an and if you took this issue on. i was very proud and it's interesting governor nancy weinman who is a great and wonderful person who i get to work with every day one of our touch-points was years ago civilians came up to be considereconsidered by the judiciary committee in the state for the first time and i put a call for leaders and state-wide officeholders to come and testify on behalf. she was the only state-wide to show up and i was the only -- to show up. two years later passed. i think it embolden the supreme court to say marriage discrimination was not acceptable and we codified that. as an aside became governor we passed the gender identity of the sabar its bill. >> i wanted to ask you about this u.s. supreme court because obviously this case has been taken up here. i think i know how this is going to go. what's your guess? >> not well. >> you wanted president obama to be more forceful on this issue. >> i think he is forceful. what is his option and? to think they are going to pass it in the congress of the united states? >> doma has to be taken up by the supreme court. i believe that my citizenry who we allowed to become marriage in our state have a constitutional right in every state to have that right nice. that you cannot discriminate against a connecticut resident who is married because you don't like that. that is unconstitutional and i hope the courts ultimately have the guts to say it. if they don't say if they are throwing out well over 200 years of our history. we get to make make the rules and are stating you have got to honor them and you've got to recognize them. marriage is a right. >> governor i want to ask you about one of your favorite topics and that is 2016. i assume you want to stay in hartford for four more years? >> yeah i want to stay in hartford. i like the job of governor quite a bit. >> should the next president come from the ranks of governor's? >> what he is trying to do? [laughter] you know there are cementers thing trends. more mayors are being elected governor and more governors are smart enough not to run for senate so i hope the whole thing works out for everybody. >> that sounds like you're ruling out a future senatorial run. >> this is what i do. i try to move the municipality in our state forward and address some of the big issues and this is what you know, i know a lot of people don't think i'm good at. i think i'm good at it and i think i'm comfortable that it. >> he was candid in saying if hillary clinton runs, if she gets an -- >> she gets and i'm not going to. nor my going to under any circumstances. so i think that there are two really big personalities in the room at the moment, the vice president and secretary clinton and i think both of them are going to have to make some decisions before this seal gets finalized. then i think we will know who otherwise will run. it's going to be a smaller field and if both of them get it and there may only be two. >> last question, to a point of personal privilege, i've been long fascinated by this topic. where are the red sox the yankees invisible line? >> it's in the new haven area. it's probably in new haven. before we came up we were talking about beaches and bar. those are dividing lines in new haven. i think the dividing line begins there. north of there you have a majority of the people who are red sox fans and south of that the vast majority are yankee's fans and but having said that for the first time in polling two years ago a majority of the people of connecticut said they were a yankee fan. >> whited that change? >> because right minded individuals. >> here we go, here we go. >> my wife is from massachusetts so we are a divided household. >> governor dan malloy thanks for chatting and i really appreciate it. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> those watching at home and at work we have governor scott walker joining us next year. thank you so much governor. appreciate it. >> hey governor, how are you? nice to see you. >> i feel like i'm in an assembly line. >> you just saw governor malloy on the way out your counterpart from connecticut. is there any common ground that you and dan malloy have? what policy issues do you guys agree on? >> i think the idea that certainly like any number of issues i came from an executive order where there are both republican and democratic governors. obviously -- >> governor all the folks in this room know who you are not just because we all know the badger state but because obviously of what to place in madison famously over the issue of public employees and organized labor. .. >> they must just not be as low-profile. >> well, many say that walker has a lower profile. so he's sort of moving away a little bit from this, this rash thing that he exhibited in the first couple of years. any thoughts? >> in our case, we are doing what we said we would do. we are actually doing what we said we would do. we are doing it right now. we did it two years ago. in november or december, even before the start of the legislature discussion, creating jobs, developing workforce, transforming education, reforming government and investing in infrastructure. i basically said that that is not only the focus of our budget, to help these focus, all of those things are kind of distractions. it's not a matter of backing off of certain issues. saying these are the issues that people told me they wanted me to work on. i have asked the legislature to joining not. >> a couple of things happening in washington, the big story is the looming issue of the sequester an an automatic budget cuts go into effect. what was the impact as far as that goes? you know, you look at the two different parts, but you look at the subsequent sequester. wisconsin, unlike other states has a relatively minimal effect. it wouldn't be like virginia, the commonwealth, places like california and most of our military, things that are related to permanent staff. we have some defense contractors , but they havarti made adjustments even as early as last year. this that is what they have already done. things that will further reduce the increase in our nation's economic recovery. it will have a negative impact on our state. >> you are a small government conservative. this is an opportunity. would you like to see this go into effect? >> i do not like random changes, i think there should be a limited government. last time, i didn't do the across the board cuts. i didn't do that. i invested $1.2 billion more into medicaid. even when i had a three-point its billion dollar budget gap. i made major cuts in terms of local government. although school districts to make up for those budget changes. i think you should be more strategic. i do not hate government. i think government doesn't work. much of our federal government is too large grateful for the things we do, we should be better. >> speaking of medicaid, you have made some news by turning down the medicaid expansion in regards to the affordable care act. it was called something that was driven by politics instead of progress. would you like to respond? >> unlike other governors in the country, in the past, either governors didn't take it or you had governors the dead. in our case we did something completely different. "the wall street journal" editorialized about how that should be a national motto. we reduced on our plans the number of uninsured people in the state. it will go down by 220,000. how did we do this? we took 87,000 people who are living above poverty today who qualified for medicaid movement into the free market, the regular market system, or the exchanges. those living just above poverty can now qualify for a $19 per month premium. >> you are still relying on obamacare because the exchanges were created? >> i do not necessarily agree with the affordable care act, but they are there. i would rather have them in the marketplace. there are 82,000 people who are not covered during the expansion. i have made the medicare program, since the coverage of people living in poverty, not people living above it, but those living below it. every person in my state will be covered. those living above poverty will be put on a path towards the market exchanges to progressively move themselves to self-determination. my goal overall, food stamps and unemployment condensation, i firmly believe that we need to move from a dependency or a lifetime of government dependence to independence, to a free and independent system. true independence, if you will. >> [inaudible] >> the landmark uaw, your statement -- would you like to talk about legislation in wisconsin? >> we did it for public sectors, which is the biggest talent out there. if you are a public employee in state and local government, you don't have to pay dues. you have the freedom to choose in and the right to choose, you can figure how it works. they cannot do that or not, that is their choice. local governments, like school districts and others can also then choose to have people to pay for things like the health care contributions or the pension contributions, although arguably much less with non-public-sector employees. we do not need that to be competitive. we are clearly not going down the path of illinois. in minnesota, they just proposed a 2 billion-dollar tax increase. i am cutting taxes in my budget. more than 600 $30 million. >> guns have been a big tradition in your state. is there any common ground in the months ahead? >> i think if you look at the tragedies, whether aurora, colorado, wisconsin, brookville, wisconsin. just as two of the examples. what is the common ground? well, it is similar when we had a guy come into our state capital ready to come after me. in all cases, there were chronic severe untreated mental illnesses. they're almost $30 million. if you look at the common denominator is, it's not just a firearm, it goes all the way back to firearm and explosives and other things like that. it is chronically untreated for a mental illness. our services go beyond that, which is far beyond certain other things. if you look at the reactions with either gun control were all these people that have a false sense of security, the real issue is that people who haven't been treated oftentimes, in many cases, that has been known to family members and friends. establishing the treatment. >> see believe putting more armed guards in schools is a solution? >> just banning certain firearms won't do that. just arming a bunch of people, because someone could be armed at the other side of the school. nothing is 100% foolproof. the most responsible is stop it before people get to that point. because that is the common denominator and everything. i called john hickenlooper and i thought he did a very good job of talking about what happened in aurora, not focusing on the political agenda of focusing on the victims and their families. seeking to protect and then figuring out what ultimately could have been done to prevent this. to find a political solution. >> what seems to be the consensus in washington? people have been treated for mental diseases in the past. >> governor, i wanted to talk to you about a story i read in "the weekly standard." steve case spent the evening at the governor's mansion quoting an oversized hd television you s watch the debate. there is one thing. you did have some praise for couple of passages. do you see comprehensive immigration pass in washington? >> more than anything, whether mexico or canada or germany or anywhere else on the globe, you have a system that is indicative that the federal government is not being able to do this. it's a good thing that some of the high skilled and highly trained individuals, one of the biggest demonstrations as we don't have enough to allow people from other countries to come on in here. someone else that comes in, we spend too much time talking in washington. the real problem is that we don't have a fundamentally simple way for people who legally want to come in. the vast majority want to come here for all the right reasons. we want to live the american dream. we more than anything we want to have the idea that if you work hard, you have a little bit of self-determination, and you can pass on those qualities your children and grandchildren you should pass them on. >> with hispanic voters, honey how do you replicate that on the national stage? >> there are high concentrations of hispanic voters. a fair number of latino voters, many were entrepreneurs. small business owners. people who came here and wanted to live your. the other choice is the advocate of school choice. i want to improve public schools. a lot of hispanic residents in my state, having a laudable catholics was an option is a very compelling issue. >> senator rubio says that immigration is a deeply issue for a lot of hispanic voters. they can even consider the republican platform on other issues because they can't get past the issue of immigration. hearing governor romney say during the course of the primary, here are some of the people from your side. does the party have to get a immigration holds on to get a clean state and translate >> i'm here all the time to hear from farmers and businesses. we have to balance that, we have to have a way that we welcome people that want to come into america for all the right reasons and the right circumstances. we need to find a legal option to make that possible. then set that aside for the future. if that is not an issue -- and that's not a reason to do it -- the reason to do it is because it's good for america. if it's beyond that, as a republican, introduced the other night a young man who is 24 years old. just came back from spending almost a year in afghanistan. one of my national guards was in wisconsin. his parents came when he was a kid, a baby, from mexico to california company moved to wisconsin when he was 11 years old. and he just got his citizenship. what a great story, fellow soldiers helped him to and from the transportation. his parents brought him and his brother to america because they knew the benefit of being an american citizen with freedom and opportunity and what comes with that. as a republican, a conservative, i think that we have a compelling story whether someone like that or someone who comes from any other country around the world. with the people coming to america, the risktakers, those who are willing to take a risk so they can have that prosperity for their children or grandchildren. they did not come by and large to become dependent upon the government. they have come to say that there were great benefits that. i'm coming to america because that's where i get my chance and freedom. that is where i have my opportunity. that's a message that says we are not about tenant rights, but empowering you to control your own destiny. >> your friend paul ryan has been a bipartisan supporter of this. not legalization, but effectively probationary status where the illegal immigrants are currently in the country and would be able to them remain in the country, not necessarily as citizens. do you support that approach? >> certainly you have to protect, my brother, for example, his mother-in-law and grandmother both immigrated legally from mexico years ago. i think that his mother-in-law and her mother, and i think for anyone who is standing in line, and the minimum for people waiting to come in the country, we have to make sure that they get into this first, because they have been following and playing by the rules. you enable people to come in and have a legal pathway to do that. that's something we have to embrace. i think there are some nuances and not. >> [inaudible question] >> you have to have a way to say that you have to make it legally possible. so people can move forward. >> okay another question. do you believe that citizens united, the court case has been good for america? >> it doesn't matter what i think, i'm not in the supreme court. >> what about in regards to your state? >> the law in wisconsin predated that court decision in terms of having no limits on campaign contributions. it doesn't have an impact one way or the other. >> but for the impact of these politics? >> i think more transparency is good. more transparency -- campaign finance reform, everyone thinks that they have a solution. for years we have said the federal system when it came to the presidential election was great because it was publicly financed and transparent. howard dean was the first one to break it. the president was the first one to do it successfully. but it did not work. that was a great role model and we need more accountability in terms of greater transparency. if you know where money is coming from, support candidates. out of the money that i raised, about 70% of the people gave me 50% or less. overwhelmingly, the people from all 50 states said they want to help this guy. >> have the idea on changing how wisconsin council electoral votes, has it varied or faded way? [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> these things are interesting. in 2000 and 2004 and again briefly this year, this past year, this past election, wisconsin was being a battleground. anything that would take away from doing that, i think it's good for my voters. whether you are a democrat or a republican with open rates, you're going to be dealing with a lot of candidates -- talking to voters is a good thing. >> let's talk politics more broadly here for a moment. looking towards 2014, ultimately 2016, one of the things that was mentioned by steve hayes in "the weekly standard", i was sad to read about the raw veggies, potato salad, deviled eggs -- >> a week after i had 400 lawmakers of both parties and their spouses, and for four hours i put brought in the backyard. >> there we go. okay. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> it's late june in a nice warm day. >> so it stated that walker could be the closest thing to the anti-obama that exists in state capitol today. high praise, i assume. >> it is based upon the audience, i suppose. >> okay, -- >> i don't think about the republican primary in 2014. >> i do not either, but you might have one down the road in iowa. do you want to run for president? >> i want to be governor. i had to work twice very hard in last two years to be governor of wisconsin. i'd got even more votes the second time. for a lot of people have worked hard for me to be governor, need to be focused on that. >> so your focus is the job at hand, you have the best job in the world. >> absolutely. anyone who is honest will tell you, particularly those who run the senate. the best job he could ever have as governor. >> all right. will we see you in iowa or new hampshire or speaking at any link in a ragged dinners? >> i actually lived in iowa for about six years. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> the funny thing is that i lived in iowa for them 1971 until 1977. my state representatives were armed at the time. >> okay, grassley? grassley and statehouse. okay, let's talk about your white house ambitions, he said not just yet, that's fine. let me just ask you more broadly about the party. you know, you were critical about senator obama's campaign and senator mccain's campaign, that took more than a share his share of criticism. is the problem -- looking back -- is as a candidate problem? a candidate issue? or are there challenges more profound than i? >> i think that the core sense of what our principles are for, when we as republicans stand together, it's a compelling message. i think we need to be more optimistic. i think it is not enough just to hold a referendum on the opposition. you have to hold a viable alternative and it's good to be realistic and we have to be eternally optimistic about our solutions. that is why there are 30 states today with republican governors. it is because we offered an option and how to fix it. we did not just blame somebody. secondly we must be relevant. i just don't think that the debate was done in a way that was relevant. i pointed out in my own state that i believe the difference between a just don't think that is the measure of success instead because we have been supportive of those who control their own destiny and in their own job. they do not have the courage to follow and act on those beliefs. what i found in our state is a lot of voters beyond as republicans who were independent with some discerning democrats, they said, i don't believe everything, but i like the fact that this guy is honest. >> who is the barack obama and scott walker voter? >> there was a great piece written about this. there are people like that. but i think it falls in latter category. >> i may not agree with everything the president has done, but i think that there are voters that look at what they have done, they look at some of the things that i didn't say, at least there are people who stand up and fall under the police. i think people more than anything succumb to leadership. >> more broadly, should the next president comes in the ranks of the governors? >> oh, absolutely. i have a huge bias. i think there is a reason for that. up until the last election, four years ago, last time that we elected someone who wasn't a governor or a vice president but for election was 1960. every other president has done a president or vice president or president running for reelection. it makes sense. the american people want someone who can get things right. you have to be a chief executive, you have to be held at ms. accountable >> you have to be accountable. >> would that have a huge impact on scaring folks away? >> i think it would have a impact because clinton is a great performer. you put in place major education reform that i and a lot of governors tried to replicate. you have a great record of success. frankly, even the selection and in the past, if you show just his last name, he would have been running for president watson is now. there is no doubt about it. is it time to take a look at names and the pastor time to move forward? >> [inaudible question] >> they are thinking one of two tracks. if hillary does run, she does. what is pretty formidable if she runs. >> she is intelligent and well preserved. >> she would be popular in wisconsin. >> she would, but i think that whoever is the nominee would have to make a case and say, do we want -- [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> if you want to think about the past, time to put someone else in the position. >> how old are you? >> i'm 45. >> you will be 47 years old in 2016, hillary clinton will be about 20 years older. about 20 years difference. it's just a statement of fact. >> others argue, bobby jindal, others in their 40s, about the same age. i sat next to the person on one side of me, bobby jindal and i are still younger than henry kissinger combined. >> one of the things i was struck by during the campaign was bobby jindal can understand the baby boomers. it increasingly dominates gop politics. your friend from wisconsin, paul ryan. chairman of the ways and means committee, do you think he wants to run for president? >> well, paul ryan is one of the most courageous and sincere people that i know. up until he was the nominee for vice president, even democrats would acknowledge that overwhelmingly. he will go to where he thinks he can be the most useful. ultimately, that means if there is a wooden he needs to run for president, he will do that. but he will go to the spot where makes the most sense for him to help this country. that is what makes him so great. >> where is he useful right now? >> right now it is clear that he is useful in the house. one of the things that i like whether you agree with him or not, he is the definition of greatness. that's a powerful thing. with him and generations of ours, it is probably the first generation of republican politicians of nationally known positions where we invoke reagan. not because it politically convenient, but we invoke reagan because he was part of my inspiration. >> it is what made me eternally optimistic. he wasn't as the leader, he wasn't as a republican. >> some people think that john boehner will retire in 2014. >> scott walker, thank you so much for being here. we really appreciate it. [applause] >> swapping our volunteer, for bill haviland right now. >> thank you for joining us here. >> it's great to see you, thank you. >> you are i believe going to be the last speaker that we are supposed to have. we were supposed to have sam brown sam brownback from kansas. the weather over the midwest has slowed him down and we are going to finish, governor, with you. >> they had 10 inches of snow that had them. >> thank you for joining us, governor. i have been talking to other governors this morning and this afternoon. the federal impact of the state and what is happening in the states. the big issue in washington, heading towards march 1 is the sequester. automatic budget cuts that are going into effect. one of the things that was news to me. >> obviously, as governors we are looking at the impact on the state's. >> what would you like to see by march 1? >> honestly i would love to see the beginning of the real deal that addresses the long term fiscal situation of the country. some real spending cuts were in place a. >> osborne had a great story. you're you have been talking about what to do in nashville. >> we all have to deal with this differently. i am proud that we are increasing our savings and rainy day fund. our budget will amount to $200 million. we have kept our credit rating. a glass or we have the second-largest increase. we are going to keep focusing on those things that we think are critical. >> one of the things that we haven't decided on is whether or not to accept the medicaid expansion and part of the affordable care act. that has made headlines last few days. florida governor scott accepting. are you going to except those? >> we really haven't decided. >> we are doing the math for the next 10 years year by year. what is the impact on the population that will be covered? it's logical to think that if you have coverage, you will do a better job for preventative care, you will get a better primary physician. they say if you are covered, here's what it means for you. even beyond that we have a lot of individuals that are struggling. they lose their payments. we want to see what the real impact is and would be to talk about it. >> legally, you know, we have made the commitment to decide during this legislative session that even though we wouldn't have to put money in the budget, it would have to get approval. so we really have a decision in the next four weeks or so. >> are you leaving it certainly? >> we haven't come to that conclusion. we are trying to do this, this is a big decision. there is a lot of it interesting things about this. at the end of the day, i don't know if that decision made that much difference. but this decision does. >> you decided to not set up a health care exchange as part of the affordable care act. why did you decide to do that? >> i think that we have decided that we didn't feel like hhs was really prepared in terms of doing that partnership. >> there is so much left to be worked out. we started with the intention thinking that we could run it better than making it. over time, it migrated to a point where we thought it would be best. and we will see from there. >> i talk to governor walker about the immigration issue. >> i actually -- now, for this reason -- i do think it is an economic development issue. i think it is one of those issues that can be solved. there are a lot of things that you look back and say, how do we get to the right place. >> folks in your state, in your party and state, how is it for them? >> i understand. i think it is one of the problems that we can solve. >> something that you have been engaged on. is it a way that republicans can be in the democratic party? [laughter] >> we claim relevant. >> by the way, al gore lost. he lost his home state. >> yes, that's true. republican senator, republican governor. i do think that everybody feels and understands and people understand that we are behind other countries. saying that we are going to decide whether or not we bring our employees here. and have a great education system. >> there was a plant that opened up in chattanooga, nissan headquarters, and i think that we have that. >> it is kind of the first and last question. they need a trained workforce. we kept waiting for all of this -- [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> no, it's real. >> we couldn't believe just the quality of life, hospitality. that we do want to make sure that you can provide the engineers and everything that we need. >> taking some questions online here, i assume this is a question. were you opposed to the internet sales tax? >> nobody is going to build that shopping center anymore. you know, i think it's a disadvantage to our brick-and-mortar retailers who are not only supporting jobs, but also the local and everything else. i used to be an internet retail business. so i understand the argument there. to me, it is a basic issue of fairness. >> we were joking at the top about your relatively low profile. but i do want to ask you about politics, it seems that things are pretty content in tennessee. you have any national ambitions? >> everybody always tells you know. has anyone ever said yes? [laughter] >> the answer is that i really don't. almost two people would be better than i would've in regards to this. [laughter] >> i get reminded of that home on the time. >> one of your friends told my colleague, the mayor of knoxville, a prominent republican. he is certainly someone who is a running mate for somebody. more broadly about your party, going forward, the democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections. can you talk about that? >> i don't know if i would say that our party needs someone who can show proven results. we have to show the things that people do really care about. it is not necessarily what those folks care about. but governor romney, he was an accomplished politician. he turned around salt lake city olympics. he was someone who was a respected business leader. >> i think you have to look at the difference between how it was a policy and plots his feet velocipede. >> i think i just broke a chair, sorry about that. >> that's okay. [laughter] >> mitt romney won tennessee by 17 or so, then he won north carolina close. here's the difference. in tennessee, neither party engage. we did not see a national advertisement the whole time. my argument would be, you see the impact. >> obama thinking that if you just tax rich people, problem solved. that does not solve that problem. these folks don't, and we lost the argument. >> governor, you seem to navigate, and in your state, a very conservative base. you know, a middle of the road, democrats and mild style. you are in pretty good shape for 2014. how could the republican party nationally pullout that balancing act? where they keep a very conservative base happy, but are culturally conservative on issues like gay marriage and abortion. at the same time, can appear to the broader middle of the country. >> i think about broader middle wants what people want in wisconsin or arizona. they want somebody that can solve the problems and provide a better future outlook. one message we haven't gone by is continuing to pass the debt on down. we have not been good job on that. the second thing is if you look at unemployment and economic growth. we have not been able to make that connection. >> the face of the republican party, let me ask you about that. because that is always a challenge. hispanics, asians, african-americans, they have in recent presidential elections, you are a southern governor. you see the parties coalescing around racial lines. is it a healthy thing to have the democratic party in the south as part of the gop? >> i do not think it is healthy. again, not just the south, but obviously in general. we have to do better with minority votes. >> howdy do a? >> i think there are a couple of things. first of all, it will be an active engagement. saying that we are going to campaign for every vote everywhere. so we did that and we did relatively well. we didn't blow them out of the water, but we did better by engaging in a community. so we didn't win either of those two counties, but it was closer than people thought it would be. thinking this is how we believe solving the problem now instead of pushing it down the road is good for your family. >> we mentioned this briefly, but i'd like to throw you off with this. do you want to see the next president come from the group of governors? >> i know some people that i think would be perfect. but i wouldn't limit it to that. >> like to? >> there is a long list. we have great republican senators. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> i'm getting ready? [laughter] [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> you better get it out. >> one of my jobs was putting up with lamarr when he ran in 1978. [laughter] >> what is the advantage of having a governor as a candidate for president? >> again, if you look up here, in washington there hasn't been a budget proposal. one argument i would make is even with democrats and mayors, they all tend to become a little bit more pragmatic. you might say the same thing about republicans. >> [inaudible question] >> i think first of all, it is about quality of life. [inaudible] we worked really hard, we put together a package, at the end of the day, when i was asking about it, how did you decide to come here, they just wanted to live here. so if you look at the strong pockets of growth, it's about quality of life. >> i wanted to ask you about tennessee. one politically thing that is fascinating to me is democrats are as strong as al gore's home state. some governors, the democratic party has really done well. >> you have to go back through history. i'm going way back on you. joining the confederacy, the last to succeed in the first backend. >> back and. >> it was a very split that. >> because of that, people went to the eastern part of the state because of the civil war and injure johnson's. >> in the south it is more agriculture-based. >> yes come over time that has changed. >> national realignment. >> not in terms of conservator rules and so forth. even though the republican party has grown more conservative, certainly in the south, the top three elected officials in your state, yourself, senator alexander, senator corker, are allowed to be center-right republicans. how do you do that without facing opposition? >> we will see periodically we honestly we would love not to have one. i am hoping it would be a lot more fun not have one. but i would argue that they both actually faced competitive primaries. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> in my primary, there was no way you could argue how two people would've worked. [talking over each other] >> i have talked about him today. >> about what? >> bob called me today about a company we are recruiting for. bob and i were college roommates come as we have been friends for a long time. and lamarr and i have been friends for a long time since he ran for governor. lemar has been a friend for a long time, so has bob. >> what is the lesson? >> i think a couple of things. you talk to everybody. i think that if you look at the way all three of us have campaigned, that would be important. >> in 78, i was way too disconnected. now, he honestly painted a line and he didn't do it straight. from the upper northeast tennessee closer to canada, the point is that he's going to go everywhere and talk to everyone. >> what surprised you most about? >> well, you had to convince the people that you are from the same world. she was a good testimony for me. [laughter] >> i do not think there is anything that surprises me. it is an interesting thing about being governor. every place in the state feels like everybody else is getting a better deal than they are. everybody said that the truth is the governor, mayor, as those rules, all that goes away. >> talking about tennessee, obviously, democrats they are are supportive of gun rights. is there any gun-control legislation nationally where you can sort of see this and supporting of it? background checks for example? >> i think the whole idea of background checks -- let's go back and say, let's look and say who did it, where they get their firearms and trace it that way. >> could you support a universal backup techno? >> again, but come back to the same thing. let's talk about universal background checks, what is the data showing us where the problem is coming from. you know, governor, before you are in politics, you were in business. can you talk for second about working and its influence on you? >> business is all about getting great people. the president sat down with his cabinet. i have 22 different agency heads . [inaudible] the point is that you better hire great people. productive people. i see them every week and a half. it was once a month, which is a long time. number two, you better understand the numbers. people say, well, not a numbers person. but you better understand the fundamental numbers of government, just like you do in business. the third thing is it is all about deciding what you want to do. in a business, everyone has a mission. manufacturing more twinkies or the tvs or whatever it is. in government there are so many missions that it is hard to be around them. here is what i wanted to do. , that is what you have to say. >> have you talked to in the white house? who is the contact for governors? >> i tend to talk to them through our education -- bonnie duncan, probably a talked to him once a month. >> okay. >> obviously hhs is a big issue, so we will be meeting with them as well. i really haven't had a time when i said, well, need to talk to the president on this. >> a phone call? >> well, i'm trying to think -- he called to see if we would be part of an education event. and he called about one of the natural disasters as well. president obama call, and vice president biden always offers up his cell phone if we need it. >> he was sort of the ship of the stimulus. [laughter] .. >> it's got to be good because it is of a big operation. >> it has been a week w. >> i could use a couple more wins. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations] >> day ages as a bride mission and we touched almost every aspect of the come -- community we screen 2 million domestic air travelers per day, we protect our borders, ports of entry and travel and trade. last year's gdp officers process more than 350 million peeper -- people and three-point to trillion dollars of trade reenforce the immigration laws and a partner with the private sector to create critical infrastructure, worked with states and local communities to prepare for in response to disasters of all types like hurricane sandy, loss and recovery and rebuilding. but the automatic budget reduction from sequestration would be disruptive and destructive to our nation's security and it would affect the mission readiness and capabilities of men and women on the front line and undermine our progress to build preparedness and resiliency. most critically to have serious consequences to the flow of trade and travel at the nation's ports of entry. be for low customs importer protection officers at the major international airports , will be limited in accepting new international flights and average wait times to clear customs will increase by as much as 50% and at the busiest airports like newark and jfk, o'hare and lax could reach over four hours or more. such delays would cost thousands of connections daily with economic consequences of local and national level. reductions of overtime and hiring freezes at the transportation security offers will increase domestic passenger wait time. on the southwest border we could have weights up of five hours functionally closing these ports. at the seaports the container examination would increase of about five-- resulting in increased cost to the trade community in reduce availability of consumer goods and raw materials. their experience constrained hours of operation affecting local communities. and things could increase in terminals up to six hours having delayed trips and missing connecting flights. of sequestration of a serious consequences for other missions as well. cdp will have to furlough all employees come reduce overtime and eliminate hiring positions and decrease the number of robbers our border patrol has to operate between the ports of entry by up to 5,000 border patrol agents. the coast guard will reduce its presence in the arctic by one-third and curtail service operations by more than 25% affecting management of the nation's waterways as well as fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction and michael interdiction. under sequestration immigration and customs enforcement parted vhs will be forced to reduce and not be able to maintain the 34,000 detention beds as required by congress and also reduce investigative activities in areas like human smuggling and commercial trade fraud. in terms of disaster preparedness response and recovery efforts, reduce disaster relief fund by $1 billion, potentially affecting survivors recovering from hurricane sandy, the tornadoes and other major disasters across the country. , and secured a grant funding reduced to the lowest level in seven years leading to potential layoffs of state and local emergency personnel across the country. i will close by saying from terrorism and the need to respond and recover from natural disasters do not diminish because of budget cuts. even in the current fiscal climate we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions without significant impact we will work to continue to preserve front-line priorities as best we can but no amount of planning could mitigate the negative effects of sequestration. as we approached the first of march, i join with all of my other colleagues and the governor's whom we heard outside to ask congress to prevent sequestration in order to maintain safety and security and resiliency of the country. thank you. >> questions? >> secretary to talk about border patrol in the nation's ports, are you saying the nation will be less secure at the border? >> no. what we will have to do at the ports of entry, we'll have to continue to check for contraband, a potential terrorism, passengers and containers in the procedures will be the same the fewer people to do that so the lines will get longer. between ports, we will see a reduction of border patrol resources between ports of entry. as i said it is almost an hour of body experience. i was testifying last week before the judiciary committee for the need for immigration reform and being cast when redoing to strengthen security at the border. the next day the appropriations committee is saying we are pulling it all back through sequestration. >> are they less secure? >> if you reduce the number of border patrol agents, i thank you could say yes it does affect our ability to keep out illegal migrants and others into the country. >> you mention the threat of terrorism with the legislative roadblocks but with the diminishing capability you describe how quick entry that have a greater threats? >> in this fiscal environment with sequestration and possible shutdown, always lacking a budget in regular order to effectively management and plan the prairie is always the safety of the american people but that will require in the impact, and they will build over the next several weeks, is that line, procedures and wait times will get longer. so if you travel by air, you have to get to the airport earlier. if you make a connecting flight, we have to make arrangements. if you try to bring cargo, you'll have to prepare for very long lines. >> user not a greater threat? >> there's always a threat. we will so we can to do we can put the sequester makes awfully, awfully tough. >> one month, the two months, the three months, with them needing 30-- notification when can the american public feel it? >> it is not all about furloughs and overtime that strikes immediately but the public will begin to feel it in the next few weeks. it will be accruing. if you heard secretary look good talking about the effect on the faa and the gsa and cdp you have a perfect storm with the ability to move around the country. >> the effects are exponential getting worse and worse? >> like a ball keep rolling. >> is the country going to be less safe after sequester in this opinion and some video over this over four years? >> we cannot keep the same level of security of all places with sequester as without. we will do everything we can within the limits sequestered gives us but if you have 5,000 fewer border agents you have 5,000 fewer agents and that has an impact. >> with more immigrants coming in with a greater threat for terrorist could launch an attack? >> we said with the congress putting record amount of personnel down on the border, i know that border really well, the u.s. attorney, the attorney general, the governor, i of from new mexico originally. that border now is as secure as it has been the last two decades. we still have more to do with it is unprecedented and now because of the budget impasse we have to look at rolling back those agents and a slowing hiring and get rid of overtime which we use a lot at ports of entry. that will have a real impact >> secretary napolitano by region doll accuse the president trying to scare the people. are you not trying to scare people that it has to happen and is a necessity as a result? >> i am not here to scare people but to inform people and so they can plan. they will see the impact in their daily life and adjust and make arrangements accordingly. if it is not shut down like turning off the light switch but these of the effects that will accrue, please don't let the customs officer because the lines are long. the lines will lengthen and in some dramatic ways. >> then why can you cut 3 percent of the budget without using devastating impacts whether aviation or security with homeland's security? >> that is not the way sequester works it goes account by a camera. it is not just $85 billion out of the economy over six months and not expect to see impact. we are personnel heavy, we secured air land and sea, a maritime environment, a disaster relief so these effects are the things people will see and need to plan for. my purpose is to make clear what these will be of less and and tell congress resolves a sequester. >> what is the total number of dollars taken from your department? >> it keeps changing what would you say? of the just? the reason i am fluctuating it was 6 percent last week but that is roughly billions. >> but are there other places you could cut back to accomplish spending cuts that the republicans insist? >> starting in 2009 finding places we could cut and avoid to streamline our efforts as much as we can. we had employees involved because they often see best where we can save and conserve we have identified over $4 billion of those types of cuts and constantly looking to see how we can efficiently carry out all the different missions under the umbrella of a vhs. we have saved billions are ready. >> are you suggesting 4 billion more? >> we're always looking for cuts in places for example, we can use technology as a force multiplier and use the leftover duty equipment for some of our missions. but we continue to have devolving terrorist threats threats, we now emerge with cyber security threats that we have huge responsibilities, and mother nature doesn't go away because of the budget cycle. >> so if there are more flexibility there be other places to cut not under the present formula. >> and the present formula comet it is of broad brush that treats everything as equivalent no prioritization and as i said before, people don't want to be less safe, or less secure, they want to think we are securing the borders, they want to make sure if there is a disaster they have an effective response. this is what people expect out of the government's government's, with those expectations would the sequester hit and how do we do that when you have the cut that says you have to reduce cdp hours and overtime and you cannot pay for this. that is what we're doing. >> are there long term consequences that will remain or resolve damage quickly undone? >> it is hard to say. you have to see what will happen. we're doing our very best to minimize sequester but there is only so much i can do. insisted have 34,000 detention beds, hardware pay for those? to pay those salaries we already have a shortage of court officers. i was in miami last week and i heard from the mayor and others about long wait times and the cruise industry and it is hard to work on that when we're likely to seek an extension of wait times. we will do everything we can that there is solely so much i can do. we're committed to the american people but there are some true economic losses and rolling back some progress at the southwest border are things we will see. >> you're mentioning it requires you to maintain certain levels. if this sequestration is part of the law compels to violate another thought what can you do through the courts to supersede? >> look, as the secretary, i work with all of these components to do the best we can to secure the public, right? now aimed between a rock and a hard place. i should not have to go to court for congress to figure out a budget for the department of romance security and the government at large. we can do this in a balanced way that allows us to rein in spending, logical cuts and cost avoidance where possible and close tax loopholes to get revenue into the system. but in the absence of the ability to come together and resolve that, what this means it will fall very heavily, people will see a. sequester is not a concept but unfortunately will have real consequences overtime. >> you have to honor this and have no legal leeway? >> not that i have been informed of. >> without sequestered we are an open society. [inaudible] >> collected the hsn department of justice and a permanent defense, we are having real impacts on our defensive posture and there are saying is that we will not be able to do as well like secure the ports of entry on the land borders as we would do without sequester. with maritime nativities, protecting the coast looking at a 25% reduction because we have to accomplish the cut between now and the end of the fiscal year. we have seven months. >> secretary napolitano americans of face long lines and longer waits isn't that just part of life in america? is that the way they just have to contribute to wait longer, is that so bad? >> i thank you are minimizing what people will see in that minimizes the impact on the economy. when you slow down the inspection of containers up to five days, we work on a just-in-time inventory if you slow down that trade trade, that translates into lots of good paying jobs, those will be impacted. when people can travel and get to where they need to go for business, it has an impact. we all contribute but this is not the way to do it. sequester is the logical process as you could conceive, in some ports it would be up to five days. we heard from bob region doll and the governor says the administration is scaring people, the president is gearing people. is that wrong? >> it is wrong. if people were scared it is because the full impact so people now say all my gosh what do i have to do? people need to know what to expect -- expect it is not the flip of a switch but it will accrue. so congress needs to come to the table with the balanced approach to get on with the work of the country. >> in the stand a balanced approach to fully but if you have flexibility to make these cuts anyway in your budget, it could to lessen the impact? >> a little bit on the margin but they fall at such a heavy level because we are so personal rich, people would still experience the things i just described. >> earlier you said the nation would be less secure and do said no. it would be the same that fewer people to do them so the line would be longer but in april asked you if vulnerabilities with increasing terror attacks and you said yes. could you clear it up? >> at the sports governing passengers and cargo, we will do the same checks. it will take longer. what i was particularly referencing of pullback of agents on the border. it is common sense if you roll that back you make it less secure than the record security there over the last few years. moving into reform with comprehensive change and reform, we all want to begin by saying the border must be secure and a sustained. >> based on the ruling that is being decided in the supreme court, what about married same-sex couples? >> the legal advice we received we cannot pleded in advance because that is all lot although we would like to see the overturned. in most cases are in low priority with what was done over the last few years build in, so we don't see those deportations ocher. >> you suspended a deification of widows of u.s. citizens if you could do for them then why not for nationals? >> because of long negative. >> with the one point* five daily trade with canada how will that impact of their relationship? when you say you want people to plan review been in touch to discuss how they could take of the works. >> i am not sure of the customs has been in contact but as i said, we do 2. $3 trillion worth of trade per year through customs and canned it is our largest trading partner in mexico is third. that translates into in the united states and one of the chief complaint i hear is it takes too long to move the trucks across, it takes too long for passenger vehicles to get through. but with sequestration that situation will not improve. >> thank you very much. i i appreciated.

Transcripts For KGO ABC News Good Morning America 20130301

his brother tried grabbing him. he was sinning as hole. the first responder on the scene grabbed him out. they weren't able to reach jeff bush. they haven't heard from him the past several hours. this property, this sink hole is 100 feet wide. the home could go at any moment. >> what a scene. all right, rob munoz from our tampa station. thanks very much. sam, how does this happen? >> it happens a lot more than we think, robin. and a lot more places than we believe. and what's most frightening about this is how sudden and instant it is. the ground is fine and there, until it's not. you're looking at pictures from florida right now. we'll give you the abc virtual view to describe what's going on under the ground. everything looks tranquil and peaceful right on top of the surface. but when you pull it away from the surface and get a side view. and the most likely states are florida, texas, alabama, missouri, kentucky, tennessee and pennsylvania. and here's why. under the surface, there will be a deposit of earth that's probably a soluble rock, like salt or gypsum or limestone. water gets in here and can't get out. and all of this dissolves. then, the water leaches away. the ground collapses. you never know the ground is going to collapse because for a long time that ground will stay perfectly in place. and all of a sudden, just give away. it could just be a few feet. it could be hundreds of acres that go suddenly, just like that. that's why this thing is so frightening. it can also happen in construction areas where water has been pumped out of the ground. >> certainly terrifying. we'll have updates as news warrants. thank you for that, sam. we turn to washington, d.c. where it is deadline day for those massive federal budget cuts due to take effect just before midnight tonight. abc's jonathan karl tracking the latest at the white house right now. good morning to you, jon. >> reporter: good morning, josh. the day is upon us. those dreaded across-the-board spending cuts will go into effect some time before 11:59 p.m. tonight. and only now is the president having his first meeting with congressional leaders here at the white house to try to do something about it. congress has now gone home for a long weekend. [ crickets ] after failing to pass a plan to avert the sweeping $85 billion in cuts. >> i cannot tell you how disgusted i am. >> reporter: in an impassioned speech on the senate floor, republican lindsey graham, cast blame not only on the president, but also on his own party. >> to me this is pathetic leadership by the commander in chief. this is an abandonment of the republican's party. this is a low point in my time in the united states congress. >> reporter: the finger-pointing is a little embarrassing, since both sides spent almost no time trying to come to an agreement. >> it is the president's sequester. it was his team that insisted upon it. >> it's a shame our republican colleagues have decided that protecting special interests. than the right thing for our economy. >> reporter: now what? the administration warns that in the coming weeks, we'll see flight delays, kids thrown out of headstart and criminals set free. but white house press secretary jay carney acknowledged the pain may not come right away. what happens at 11:59? >> look, you know, not all of them will be felt immediately. they don't all happen on saturday. it's a gradual process. but the cumulative impact of sequester, you know, will be significant to our economy and particularly so to the individuals affected. >> reporter: nobody has high hopes for today's meeting. even if they were to suddenly come up with an agreement, of course, the house and the senate are gone for the weekend. so, there would be nobody around to actually pass it. robin? >> so true. all right, jon. thanks so much. so, how could the looming cuts affect each of us? "gma weekend" co-anchor bianna golodryga is here with that. good morning, bianna. >> reporter: good morning, robin. while all these budget cuts may not have a huge impact on the overall economy just yet, they will be affecting millions of americans. and many of them not well as it is. let's show you what's going to happen. those receiving unemployment checks, unemployment checks will go down by nearly 10%. 9.4%. the long-term benefit, a loss of $400 for those collecting checks. also, those on disability payments will be delayed for weeks. we don't know how many weeks. also, we're talking about small businesses. small business loans will be down nearly $2,000. small businesses affecting millions of americans. this particular cut would affect 22,000, nearly 23,000 americans. this is important because small businesses employ the majority of all american workers. robin? >> bianna, thank you. and on "this week," george will have the latest with his guest republican senator kelly ayotte. let's turn to dan harris with the news. >> taking this place over. >> you are. >> watch out. rachel smith is here, too. it's colonization starting now. good morning, everyone. we're going to be leading with a wildfire that's menacing homes out of los angeles this morning. it broke out overnight, east of the city in riverside county. you can see 30-foot flames devouring palm trees and scorching backyards. this fire is being fueled by unseasonably warm and windy conditions. 200 firefighters are trying to put this thing out. people have been told to evacuate. but some of them are using garden hoses to protect their property. so far, the fire is about 30% contained. at the vatican this morning, pope benedict's apartment has been sealed. the doors closed with that symbolic red ribbon, all part of the ancient, secret and elaborate process leading up to choosing a new pope. abc's david wright is at the vatican once again this morning to tell us what is coming next. david, good morning. >> reporter: good morning, dan. a new day begins for the roman catholic church. this morning, the dean of the college of cardinals sent out this letter, calling the cardinals to rome. he sent it out by e-mail, in fact. the vatican adapting its ancient traditions to modern times. at the stroke of 8:00 last night, the swiss guard closed the heavy doors at castel gandolfo. and the local police took over for them. marking the moment that benedict was no longer hope. -- pope. the vatican took his picture off the pope's twitter account and deleted all of the tweets. that account will soon belong to someone else. today, the call went out to the cardinals, a summons to a general congregation 9:30 monday morning. they'll have daily meetings to discuss the issues facing the charge. while technicians prepare the sistine chapel for the conclave. installing cell phone jamming devices under the floor boards. installing the chimney for the smoke signals, the only way approved method for communicating the results. what are you hearing? >> you know, quite honestly, it's an open conclave. >> reporter: the cardinals tell us the names they have in mind going in, include all the ones being discussed in the news media. >> did we miss anybody? >> cardinal -- >> reporter: now, we should underscore that the meetings that begin monday morning are not the start of the conclave. they will have general meetings to discuss the future of the church while they await all of the cardinals' arrivals. but most of them are already here. so, it could begin relatively quickly. dan? >> and the cell phone jammers in the floor of the sistine chapel. david wright, thank you. this morning, president obama is taking a stand on gay marriage. and he has an unusual ally here. the white house is now urging the supreme court to overturn california's ban on same-sex marriage. calling it unconstitutional. and support is coming in from clint eastwood, who famously ridiculed the president with an empty chair at the republican convention. and finally this morning, take a look at what happened in iowa. a tractor-trailer burst into flames. it was dangling off a highway after a crash. watch as the fire crews go to extremes here. they push the trailer over the edge so the flames wouldn't spread to the second trailer. the driver had managed to jump out. so, in the immortal words of one josh elliott, no one was hurt. >> thankfully. >> which i believe that should be the name of josh elliott's book. it's going to have that intonation, too. you know what i'm saying? >> just like that. >> you will be forced to read the book. thank you, dan. all right, we're going to turn now to a very odd and rather stunning couple in the news this morning. basketball hall of famer dennis rodman, making international headlines, becoming the first american to meet north korean leader kim jong-un. file this under the strangest but the truest. abc's claire shipman has more, now, in washington. good morning to you, claire. >> reporter: good morning, josh. maybe it's an updated take on that cold-war ping-pong diplomacy. the match-up is bizarre. but both personalities are so quirky, it almost makes a strange sort of sense. it's a long way to go for a bromance. >> it's my first time. i think it is -- most these guys' first time. >> very upset. >> reporter: american bad boy nba hall of famer dennis rodman. and worldwide bad boy, dictator, kim jong-un. two guys, sharing a lot of laughs in north korea. bonding at a harlem globetrotters exhibition game. the north korean leader is a passionate basketball fan. afterwards, sushi at the leader's palace. background music -- the theme song from that smash tv show, "dallas." the unlikely courtship made the front page of the newspaper. rodman assured his new pal, he has a friend for life. apparently, it's basketball diplomacy. an hbo producer brought rodman and a few globetrotters to pyongyang as part of a new documentary series. >> this is a basketball game. and it's a basketball game designed to bring about dialogue. >> reporter: always over-the-top, remember the hair? the wedding dress? north korea may be the only place rodman is considered a diplomat. he's now the first american to meet the new north korean leader. an honor not even given to the head of google recently. administration sources say this get-together came as a surprise. >> we don't think the timing of this is particularly helpful. >> reporter: especially just a few weeks after the north koreans conducted a highly-provocative nuclear test. rodman tweeted, i'm not a politician. kim jong-un and north korean people are basketball fans. now, kim jong-un said he hopes this visit will break the ice between the two countries. rodman reportedly invited him for a visit to the united states. that got a huge laugh from the dictator, robin. >> i'm sure it did. all right, claire, thank you. have a good weekend. now, to the mystery of the show dog who suddenly died just days after the prestigious westminster dog show. the owner suspects her beloved pet was deliberately poisoned during the event. dan, you've been tracking the latest for us. >> all over this story. good morning, once again. the death of a dog named cruz has touched off a feverish round of finger-pointing and hand-wringing. and it has provided us a fascinating glimpse into the intense world of dog shows. cruz was a cotton puff. a 3-year-old purebred samoyed, worth thousands of dollars, flew commercial and was considered an up-and-comer in the dog show world. >> he was just a cool dog to be around. >> reporter: he came to new york last month with a dream, competing at westminster, the super bowl for canines. the night before at the new yorker hotel, cruz had a steak dinner with his handler, robert chapman. the day of, he trotted spryly, although he didn't win. but days later, he started coughing blood and then died. the vet says his symptoms suggest he ate rat poison. >> we wholeheartedly believe that he was intentionally poisoned. >> reporter: he believes cruz was poisoned by animal rights activists. one of whom argued with him outside the show. and he's raising the possibility that she could have thrown some rat poison into the dog's cage. >> the accusation is ludicrous. and he hasn't even identified the person as an animal rights activist. it was someone who criticized him. >> reporter: so, what about cruz's rivals? after all, the dog show world is a competitive hothouse, where i've seen owners go to extraordinary lengths for an edge. >> she gets breakfast made for her in the morning. and it's a hot breakfast. >> reporter: eggs? >> oh, yeah. >> reporter: it's happened before. look at this "new york times" headline from 1895. eight dogs poisoned at westminster. jealousy believed the motive. impossible, says the handler. >> i don't believe it was another competitor by any means. i believe it was somebody who is sick. >> reporter: so, then, maybe cruz ate rat poison unintentionally. however, the people at the hotel where he stayed say they don't use the stuff. and, according to the westminster kennel club, the same thing is true at the facility where the dog show was held. okay. so what now? the owner has called the nypd. but it's too late to have the body examined. the owner was so confident that cruz had been poisoned, she said she immediately had him cremated. his life, impossibly cute. his death, perhaps, impossible to solve. >> thank you, dan. we turn now to a truly one of a kind rental opportunity. in the heart of beverly hills. perfect for a large family or every single one of your friends. 29 bedrooms, 40 bathrooms. your own nightclub and all for just a cool $600,000 a month in rent. abc's nick watt takes us on a tour. >> reporter: who could possibly live in a place like this? the answer could be you. nice is possibly an understatement. if you can afford the rent. $600,000 a month. yes, you heard me right. it's not my accent. $600,000 a month. whitney lived here in "the bodyguard." gazed at k.c. across this pool. jfk and jackie honeymooned here in real life. we all know this view. >> that's the famous staircase from "the godfather." >> reporter: all yours for $20,000 a day, plus a gigantic security deposit. has anyone ever trashed the place? >> no. >> reporter: this, one of the only old-school beverly hills estates left is also for sale to the right buyer. >> and most likely, it will be a buyer who will live here maybe six weeks, eight weeks out of the year. has multiple homes. >> reporter: sorry? someone's going to pay 115 million bucks to live here for six weeks a year? >> exactly. >> reporter: buy or rent, we're talking 17 bedrooms, 29 bathrooms, a nightclub and a gentleman cave. that's like a man cave but lined with vintage french wine. do you have to pay utilities? >> utilities are included. >> reporter: good. good. just checking. i wish i could say it was gaudy and gauche. but it's not. it's lovely. i'd love to live here. but they wouldn't cut a deal. it's cozy. 600 grand a month. i can dream about it. i can dream about living here. and i will. and i will. ain't nothing wrong with champagne wishes and caviar dreams. for "good morning america," nick watt, abc news, beverly hills. >> got to love that nick. got to love that nick. >> what's that line? this is the life we have chosen. that's the life we could certainly choose. >> you called it. you knew it was "the godfather" house. >> i tell you that shot from that pool. >> mr. movie magic here. he knew it. he knew it. speaking of mr. movie magic. that's what we like to call sam the second hour of the program. sam, what do we have? >> we're going to start with cold air moving across the country. you might have california dreams. it's one of the few places that end up being warm. watch the fronts drop down. we have freeze warnings in georgia today. i wouldn't be surprised to see them in north and central florida during the day tomorrow. morning windchills, 16 in chicago. 27 in memphis. they're on their way down further south. again, the west coast, one of the few places where it's actually warm. and we're sharing the northwest warm here. look at this -- 62 in seattle. 64 in portland. this is very close to record levels. all the way around the west coast. just a beautiful couple of days. cold right in the middle of the country. >> heads up for the weekend. deep south, cold blast, everybody. that weekend getaway was brought to you by target. >> all right, sam. coming up, a dramatic twist in the so-called breakup murder trial. what caused jodi arias to break down in tears on the stand? and fighting for his job. a popular high school basketball coach fired over a racy video from his past. why parents, though, are rallying around him right now. and everyone's going bananas for "the harlem shake." but is it safe to do it when the entire plane's in flight? the faa investigates. we got answers. "gma," straight ahead. start with the best. use only natural ingredients. make something original. genuine. real. so peel it open. stir it up. and raise a cup to the real. of course everybody has secrets. in fact ... you are looking at one of my secrets right now. new revlon nearly naked™ makeup covers flaws melting into skin to even out your complexion. so the only one who knows you have makeup on ... is you. dare to be revlon. the moment my moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasiss. started getting in the way, that was it... it was time for a serious talk with my dermatologist. this time, he prescribed humira-adalimumab. humira helps to clear the surface of my skin by actually working inside my body. in clinical trials, most adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis saw 75% skin clearance. and the majority of people were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. 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. make the most of every moment. ask your dermatologist about humira, today. clearer skin is possible. and less saturated fat? it's eb. eggland's best eggs. better taste. better nutrition. better eggs. it's eb. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ advil pm® or tylenol pm. the advil pm® guy is spending less time lying awake with annoying aches and pains and more time asleep. advil pm®. the difference is a better night's sleep. >> now from use. an investigation into a fatal officer-involved shooting is underway in sonoma county town of guerneville after the rescue of a kidnapping victim last night after a woman was abducted from san rafael. she sent out text messages and the deputies gave chase and that is where the suspect crashed the car, the woman was pulled to safety by deputies who fatally shot the suspect. the victim was not injured. >> sue is off today so we will look at the traffic conditions. this is highway 87 in the show area and another example of how foggy it is. with the sun up, this is the by bridge toll plaza, it is murky, so remember that headed to the bridge. most of the bay area bricking are >> this is how it looks from mount tamalpais to san francisco you can barely see a leg of the golden gate bridge sticking through. this is how it looks, on the golden gate bridge, you can see ho ♪ creating "harlem shake" videos. how does the banana -- how did it get past security? >> so many questions. >> the faa investigating. and we'll -- i love the gentleman in the front. it's kind of like -- >> he got sucked in. like, what's happening here? our audience, doing a little "harlem shake" on their own. but you're not seeing how they were instructed to do it. >> come back for "gma live!" and you will, however. it is friday. happy friday, everybody. march 1st. george and lara are off today. great to have dan harris and rachel smith are here today. it's like the weekend is creeping in on us. >> we had a plan early this morning. >> everybody is jump-starting. weekend starts friday. we have that story. a basketball coach said he was forced out after a risque video from his past surfaced. but the interesting twist here. the parents of his team are now fighting to help him get his job back. everyone wants to know the answer to this question. what's the secret to a happy marriage? is it putting your relationship first and your children second? we're going to introduce you to the celebrity couple saying that's how they do it. and can you believe it's actually causing controversy? there's going to be discussion about it. >> let everybody weigh in. hear their opinion. rachel, i look at you. i think of the oscars. i can't believe it was earlier this week. it was a big week, a huge week for jennifer lawrence. now, she's starring as the face of miss dior. her reaction when she saw these photos. a little unexpected. but real when she saw these. >> she remains real to the very last bit. >> yes, she does. we're going to get to the emotional day at the so-called breakup murder trial yesterday. jodi arias, repeatedly breaking down in tears, as the prosecutor grilled her on the night that she killed her ex-boyfriend, travis alexander. it was her 13th day on the stand. and really could have been the most pivotal of all. abc's ryan owens has the latest. >> reporter: jodi arias finally caved under the pressure. >> ma'am, were you crying when you were shooting him? >> i don't remember. >> were you crying when you were stabbing him? >> i don't remember. >> reporter: on day five of juan martinez's withering cross-examination. >> would you like to look at the photograph? >> no. >> reporter: she broke down when he told her to look at the gruesome crime scene she created. stabbing and killing her ex-boyfriend, travis alexander. >> would you also agree you are the individual that stabbed him in the upper torso? >> yes. >> reporter: the 32-year-old claimed she killed alexander in self-defense in june of 2008, when the mormon businessman threatened her life. the prosecutor made arias act out the way she says he lunged at her. >> show me the linebacker pose. >> reporter: martinez believes arias is a cold-blooded killer who made up the fight and abuse allegations to justify her bloody rampage. she also did a lot to cover her tracks. like leaving this voicemail for a man she just killed. >> but let me know. and i'll talk to you soon. >> there would be no other reason to leave a dead man a telephone call, would there? >> ultimately, that was the main reason, yes. >> reporter: she also wrote this e-mail to him three days after the crime. >> hey, you. i haven't heard back from you. i hope you're not still upset i didn't come to see you. >> reporter: martinez ended by showing this clip from the show "inside edition." >> you can mark my words on that one, no jury will convict me. >> and you believed that no jury would convict you because you were going to lie your way out of it, right? >> objection. argumentative. >> reporter: next week, arias will be back on the stand, under friendlier questioning by her attorney. he has a lot of work to do. his client could face the death penalty. for "good morning america," ryan owens, abc news, phoenix. >> thank you, ryan. for more, now, we're going to bring in our legal analyst, dan abrams. until now, jodi arias had been composed on the stand. you had been impressed by her level of composure in her testimony. seemingly, as you said, almost robotic at times. but it all changed. >> at the right time. right? i mean, she's crying at the right time. she continues to follow a script. she continues to be, in my view, a good witness, with horrible facts. so, she's getting really upset when they're showing her photos of his dead body. she's getting really upset when they're talking about how she killed him. but i say, this is the right time for the prosecutor to be aggressive. i've been critical of the prosecutor for being overly aggressive early in the cross-examination. this is the time for the prosecutor to be aggressive. i would have liked this to have popped a little more, from his perspective, rather than fighting with her over some of the details he was fighting with her about earlier in the case. this is that moment. this is the courtroom moment. >> has he established motive? >> the prosecution has enormous evidence in this case. the problem is, the last thing you want is one or two jurors maybe feeling sorry for her. and as a result, possibly pushing for a lesser conviction. you know, i don't think it's likely. but possible for a not guilty. so, the last thing prosecutors want in this case is a hung jury. >> quickly, what to expect from redirect? >> i think it should be quick. i think that we've heard enough from jodi arias. i think she's done well enough that the defense attorney should have her on the stand, ask her a few questions, maybe for an hour or two. but then, move on, let this case go. i think she's done what she needed to do. >> testifying help or hurt her? >> it's helped. even if you can say she's probably going to be convicted. >> still more to come. now, to a popular high school basketball coach fighting to get his job back. he says he was pushed out over a racy video he made ten years ago. some parents at the school now taking his side. abc's gio benitez is here with much more on this. a lot of eyes on this story. >> reporter: it's interesting. good morning. this story is creating controversy across the nation. many asking how much of your past should come back to haunt you? perhaps most surprising is what parents are saying. mike visdo was a possible high school coach, known for setting a good example and winning games. >> it's not just about coaching kids' basketball. it's about keaching them life lessons. >> reporter: but this morning, he's out of a job because of this. >> i'm so psyched. >> reporter: this is also visdo, not on the court. but starring in a raunchy short film back in 2003, while he was working as an actor. it's something he hadn't thought about for years, until he says it was e-mailed to his bosses at weston high in february. >> it may not be the film everybody likes to watch. not pornographic. no nudity. i was an actor. >> the film is extremely sexually explicit. contains vulgarity and demeans certain types of individuals. >> reporter: after agreeing with vhzdo, he agreed to resign. the school sent this letter to parents saying he quit due to person reasons. and he could not lead the program the way it needed to be led. but vhizdo says he was forced out. >> they're my sons. >> reporter: in the weeks since he stopped coaching, parents rallied around him. >> he was an actor in a film produced who has gone on to be successful in the industry. >> he's been very involved in the community. we believe he's a good role model and a good person. >> reporter: this morning, the school district says it is, quote, continuing its review of the matter. but that's little comfort for vhizdo, whose team will play in the state playoffs on sunday, most likely without him. this morning, sources tell us the school is in talks with vhizdo, working on possibly rehiring. if you're asking who the director was? it's a guy who has written and directed small films for more than a decade. even work as jack black's personal assistant for a few years. >> a professional he was working with. but it's got to work in his favor that he has parents speaking out on his behalf. >> thanks, gio. let's get another check of the weather with sam. >> has anybody said happy friday? >> happy friday. >> if we haven't, let's do that. we start with pictures out of north carolina with some snow in that area. look how beautiful that is. it really can be. i prefer it to be sunny and warm. but if it's snowy, it can look like that. more in the carolina mountains. louisville, lexington, paducah, nashville, memphis. you're lined up to get light snow as the cold front drops in the middle of the country. maine coming in with more snow. and the cold air drops in behind all of this. tampa goes to 39 by sunday morning. monday morning, 37 degrees. miami, you're in the 40s sunday and monday morning. atlanta, of course, you're down into the 20s. that's how cold this burst of air is. a little unusual for march when we should be settling out with milder temperatures getting in. but we're getting a cold shot of >> if you're looking for warmth, it's all over the west coast. >> you just walk and talk your way right over here. >> i move over to the desk. >> you should see him do "the harlem shake." "the harlem shake" on a plane. the faa investigating right now and the guys behind the video. also, the secrets to a happy marriage. controversy heating up over whether your relationship should be first and your kids second. "this is george. he is a good little monkey and always very curious. one day george got an important letter. he's built a rocket ship to travel into space." google, how far is earth to the moon? moon is 238,900 miles... "the great moment had come." 3, 2, 1... [ giggling ] [ female announcer ] roc® retinol correxion max. the power of roc® retinol is intensified with a serum. it's proven to be 4x better at smoothing lines and deep wrinkles than professional treatments. roc® max for maximum results. i took my son fishing every year. we had a great spot, not easy to find, but worth it. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function starting within five minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better. and that means...fish on! symbicort is for copd including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. with copd, i thought i'd miss our family tradition. now symbicort significantly improves my lung function, starting within 5 minutes. and that makes a difference in my breathing. today, we're ready for whatever swims our way. ask your doctor about symbicort. i got my first prescription free. call or click to learn more. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. then we tried new nutri-grain fruit crunch bar. it's so crunchy. crunchy granola, mmmm... made with real fruit, 20 grams of whole grains. now, we love mornings. ♪ we're back at 7:44, with, oh -- video we've been showing you. passengers on a jet doing "the harlem shake." a recent flight from denver to san diego. plenty of time for a bunch of college students, as you see here, to flash mob the cabin. getting almost every passenger out of their seats. however, unfortunately, now, the faa is investigating. and clayton sandell has the story. >> reporter: they've been done underwater. with puppies. but this morning, it's this "harlem shake" on a plane, that has federal investigators rattled. >> it hasn't been done before. why not try something new? >> reporter: the video complete with a dancing banana and abraham lincoln was recorded by a sophomore at colorado college. he and his ultimate frisbee team was flying from denver to a tournament in san diego. now, after seeing the video on youtube, the faa wants to know if the team broke any rules, like standing up on takeoff or interfering with the flight crew. >> we spoke with the flight attendants. they seemed excited about the idea. >> everybody has a great time with it. we never felt we were being unsafe at any point. we were up when the fasten seat belt sign is off. >> reporter: given that airliners are built to design mother nature's turbulent rocking and rolling. >> unless you had everybody running forward and backward, that would be a little difficult to handle in the cockpit. but it couldn't bring the airplane out of the sky. >> i think it looks worse in the video. >> reporter: for its part, frontier says all safety medses were followed and the seat belt sign was off. the airline is no stranger to "the harlem shake." recently posting its own video of flight crews passing the time during flight layovers. for "good morning america," clayton sandell, abc news, denver. >> we have to really look at ourselves as people right now, i think. serious, serious look. we got lots to come. >> we do. anne hathaway apologizing for her last-minute dress switch-a-radio. "play of the day," a north carolina state center fielder. one of the great things ever. [ female announcer ] when a woman wears a pad she can't always move the way she wants. now you can. with stayfree ultra thins. flexible layers move with your body while thermocontrol wicks moisture away. keep moving. stayfree. while thermocontrol wicks moisture away. see lioutdoors, or in.ight. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. visit your eyecare professional today to ask about our newest lenses, transitions vantage and transitions xtractive lenses. experience life well lit. ask which transitions adaptive lens is best for you. when your allergies start, doctors recommend taking one non-drowsy claritin every day during your allergy season for continuous relief. 18 days! 12 days! 24 days of continuous relief. live claritin clear. every day. rich and creamy cheese in indulgent, mouthwatering flavors you just can't resist. and at 35 tiny calories per wedge, you're free to indulge in every last bit. the laughing cow cheese. have you laughed today? the laughing cow cheese. whether you're vacationing in thor, orange county... start at alamo.com. just click on the alamo deal retriever℠. and get our best deal, customized for you. because everyone loves a little getaway... alamo. right then. here's "the play of the day." >> a little sting from our past. love when "the play of the day" is a play. brett williams, north carolina state center fielder. he's tracking this one down off of the new mexico state bat. and look at the catch. >> oh. >> thank you. pleasures can simply hurt. the sadness, anxiety, the loss of interest. the fatigue and aches and pains. depression hurts. cymbalta can help with many symptoms of depression. tell your doctor right away if your depression worsens, you have unusual changes in behavior or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. simple pleasures shouldn't hurt. talk to your doctor about cymbalta. depression hurts. cymbalta can help. dare to leave your lipstick at home. new revlon colorstay ultimate suede™ lipstick gives you all-day color and instant moisture with shea butter and aloe. for food-proof wear and velvety soft lips. [ angry gibberish ] [ justin ] mulligan sir. mulligan. take a mulligan. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is, a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ angry gibberish ] [ fake coughs ] sorry that was my fault sir. [ male announcer ] alka seltzer plus severe sinus. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is! [ male announcer ] try alka seltzer plus severe sinus day and night for complete relief from your worst sinus symptoms. >> now from abc7 news. the spacecraft is on the way to the international space station with a payload from the bay area launching from cape canavaral, florida, last hour. the unmanned spacecraft is delivering a payload that includes a dozen experiments designed by high schoolers in san jose and los gatos. and now, you can see how foggy the bay bridge toll plaza is, with the fog above the cars. the golden gate bridge is really foggy this morning. some of the other bridges are, too. >> check out the reverse commute and the fog this morning. it is moving from east to west toward the ocean, that is the offshore wind that will bring us the warmer weather this afternoon. look how quickly it is disa disapatit. >> enjoy the warmth. >> the news continues now with "good morning ♪ [ cheers and applause ] we said it before, we'll say it again, we love our studio audience. the people who come out here with their signs, bringing such great energy and joy. great crowd here in times square. d.j. irie spinning us into the weekend. >> it's "deejay friday." >> absolutely. >> and he has a dance himself. >> he has a home game. >> love it when you're here, d.j. irie. george and lara taking time off. glad to have dan harris and rachel smith with us here on a friday morning. why you -- >> why did i fill your shoes? they tell us this is a fitness craze afoot. >> i get it. >> ding. >> we're trying to figure it out. it's working out in high heels. i'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. i can't imagine. >> there's some that really swear by this. and say it makes all the difference. a new controversy brewing. should you really put your relationship ahead of your kids' needs? one celebrity couple revealing that their secret to a happy marriage. and we'll get into the debate and it's really heating up right now. and what a fun night. we all love this woman. jennifer lawrence, looking fantastic, as the new face of miss dior. but amazing, her reaction has got everybody talking. the first time she saw the pictures. and we want to talk about that. you have to love her. she just always talks from the heart. >> absolutely. what else, sam? is it safety or is it luxury, ladies and gentlemen? how much would you pay for this stroller? >> what? >> yes, aston martin. maybe it's the fastest stroller on the block. i'm not exactly sure. but it is gorgeous. we're going to talk about it. >> that baby better be well-behaved. every day, you think you've seen it all. you come to work -- and dan harris now with the news. >> good morning, everybody. we are watching closely, this scene, near tampa, florida, where a sinkhole is swallowing a house from the inside. kind of hard to tell from this video. but the sinkhole opened up beneath the bedroom, taking down the interior walls, along with a 36-year-old man, who is now presumed to be dead. the hole is described as 100 feet in size. still growing at this hour. the house could collapse at any moment. and neighboring homes have also been evacuated. also this morning, fire crews east of l.a., battling a wildfire that erupted overnight. threatening neighborhoods in riverside county. the flames 30 feet high and fanned by warm and windy weather. this fire is only 30% contained. the week-long manhunt for the man in the shoot-out on the las vegas strip. is finally over. police say mark harris opened fire from his ring rover, killing a rapper in a maserati. that car crashed into a taxi, killing two other people. president obama is meeting with congressional leaders this morning, in a last-ditch effort to avoid the $85 billion in spending cuts set to take effect today. both sides admit there's very little hope for compromise. without a deal, the government will start reducing services and notifying workers of furloughs. new information this morning about olympic star oscar pistorius, who is now out on bail, charged with murdering his girlfriend. we have learned that pistorius is trying to settle a lawsuit, stemming from assault allegations in 2009. a neighbor accused pistorius of slamming a door on her during a party. the charges were dropped. pistorius claims the case damaged his reputation. he's now holding confidential talks to resolve this case. new legal trouble for lance armstrong. an insurance company in nebraska is now suing him for 3 million bucks. the company covered the bonuses for some of his tour de france wins. armstrong's legal woes could now top $100 million. and finally, this is big news. the missing link has finally been found. to be precise, the missing italian sausage link. to be more precise, a sausage costume named guido, used at milwaukee brewers home games. the costume disappeared two weeks ago from a bar. he was spotted in local bars. even doing "the harlem shake." there you go, everybody. the costume has been returned, safe and sound. a woman claiming to be one of the thieves apologized in a note saying, quote, you probably think i'm the wurst. it continues. i started feeling the heat, as the police began to -- get the bell ready -- catch up. there was a reward offered briefly for an unlimited supply of mustard and something else. >> relish. >> some other condiment, that will not be given to anybody at this point. >> thankfully, no one was hurt. >> that's right. i should have said that. i should have said that. >> i'm here for you, dan. >> nobody was hurt. >> milwaukee on-edge for days. thank you for that. and for us, is rachel smith. lara is taking a little time off. good to have you here with "pop news." >> great to be here. great to see you twice in one week. we were at the oscars. speaking of the oscars, ben affleck, celebrated a big oscar win with, check this out. a good, old shave. this morning, we're finally seeing how he looks without that rumored lucky beard. according to tmz, after snagging the oscar for best picture sunday night, ben's wife, jennifer garner, of course, apparently bought the clippers and cheered him on to do it. his whole family, and three of the kids, were reportedly sick of the scruff. off it came sunday night. at an oscar after-party. george clooney and ben. >> i think the girls wanted to shave it all. >> where did daddy go? >> he was great with it, too. >> either way. i'm with you. >> just saying. okay, so, susan boyle, she is dreaming another dream. can i get a ding? there we go. the beloved scottish singer is making her feature film debut in "the christmas candle," which also stars samantha bard. it tells the tale of angels, candles and christmas wishes. now, while she's enjoying the period costumes, susan boyle, it's very cold filming on location in the u.k. and, quote, she says, i'm wearing long johns under my bustle. >> got to do what a girl's got to do. >> indeed she does. layer up, susan. and speaking of style and everything, paris fashion week is in full swing. and bringing out very bold couture and big names like this eye-catching duo. fergie and cher. the 66-year-old oscar winner and 33-year-old black eyed peas singer, dazzled with their outfits. fergie who recently announced she was pregnant, played up her growing baby bump. they were really dazzling in some interesting fashions. finally, before having children, many couples try caring for a dog. one couple in the netherlands is treating their sheepdogs like kids. taking adorable pictures of them and posting them online for everyone to see. look at the two posing there. a landscape shot, out with -- i think their names are sara and sophie. two sheepdogs. the dogs -- they're very cooperative. and the pictures are just proof. here they are, having a little breakfast. and i think there's another shot of them, of course, at the atm. we all need to have a little cash on us, right? don't want to get stranded without cash. especially when you're playing chess. look at that thought. the look of contemplation on that checkmate, right? that's "pop." all i have. >> thanks for bringing it to us. how much better can it get? sam champion. that's how much. >> we're outside in times square. what an amazing crowd. first, i have to say, young man, what's your name? >> jack. >> jack. and you think you can handle the weather? >> yes. >> and you know, deep down inside that you're better than i am? >> yes. >> we'll give you the opportunity. but let's say hi to you and all of your friends who are part of the fightcolorectalcancer.org. 1 million strong they say, by the way, this is colorectal cancer month. explain that to me? >> we have a 20-foot supercolon you can come through and look at what a healthy colon looks like. or a colon with polyps or cancer. >> we're going to do some maps together. let's look at the maps. we're going to show you what's going on. this is the west coast. give me a couple of cities and some numbers. >> san francisco 69 degrees. los angeles, we have 84 degrees. san diego, 80 degrees. palm springs, 83. >> i think you've got this. i think you've got it down. the problem is, you just showed america how easy it is to do my job. so, that's the weather around the nation. >> i'm jack. and now, back to rachel smith. >> jack, you rock. you're a rising star, man. now, here's a look at what's ahead on the "gma morning menu." jennifer lawrence's startling confession about being the new face of miss dior. plus, is putting your relationship first and your children second the key to a happy marriage? one couple revealing that's their secret. and exercise in high heels. well, i'm going to give it a try. yeah. inside the new way to pump up your workout. all coming up. yes. yes. plus, d.j. irie live on "gma" here in times square. work it out. here in times square. work it out. so do you guys think being fast is better than being slow? [ kids ] yes! it's better to be fast to not be bitten by a werewolf and then you'll be turned into one and you will have to stay in and then you'll have to get shaved because you will be too hot and then you're like... [ growling ] which means i wish i was back to a human. what? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. faster is better. and at&t is the nation's fastest 4g lte network for your iphone 5. ♪ for your iphone 5. nature made said, "here's something easier."ills are hard to take." new full strength minis. the same full dose of key omega-3s, now in just one small softgel per day. then we tried new nutri-grain fruit crunch bar. it's so crunchy. crunchy granola, mmmm... made with real fruit, 20 grams of whole grains. now, we love mornings. ♪ the moment my moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasiss. now, we love mornings. started getting in the way, that was it... it was time for a serious talk with my dermatologist. this time, he prescribed humira-adalimumab. humira helps to clear the surface of my skin by actually working inside my body. in clinical trials, most adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis saw 75% skin clearance. and the majority of people were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. 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. make the most of every moment. ask your dermatologist about humira, today. clearer skin is possible. til dance do we part! the solos are complete... you are the pig to her blanket. that's not breakdancing, that's break-up dancing. don't give up on us america, we're not done yet! now two must dance as one. you won't run into the top ten appliance brands just anywhere... only sears carries them all. and only sears delivers them all with $70 in shop your way points. this is sears. itstronger so it holds up bebetter, kind of angel soft®. it's now built with two softshield™ layers. when wet, new angel soft® is one, two, three times stronger than the leading value brand. well done, angels! stronger, holds up better... all wrapped up in a value you love. new angel soft®. now stronger than ever. [ male announcer ] we all have something neatly tucked away in the back of our mind. a secret hope. that thing we've always wanted to do. it's not about having dreams, it's about reaching them. ♪ an ally for real possibilities. aarp. find tools and direction at aarp.org/possibilities. [ cheers and applause ] all right. yeah. ♪ >> d.j. irie. >> he's got the best smile. >> you have to respect that. >> thanks to everybody outside. we have a great crowd out there. and we have a special guest joining us, now. larry hackett, with the heat index. hot topics to discuss. he's the managing editor of "people" magazine. there she is. jennifer aniston. the wedding countdown is upon us. we do want to start with another jennifer, lawrence. she is the official it girl. if she wasn't before, best actress, the goings on backstage with jack nicholson. she is miss dior, the face of. but when she saw the photos, she spoke very frankly. look at -- what was miss dior unhappy with? i don't understand this. >> who said change the eyebrow? this is like when you pull on a string. you touch an eyebrow, then, she has a new head. she doesn't need a new head. >> the fact that -- the photo people don't want to admit they've been photoshopped. >> that's part of her appeal. she says whatever she thinks. she does things like maybe she shouldn't do, like flip off photographers. she's incredibly frank. as a result, they look kind of silly. they signed her up before she was completely ubiquitous everywhere. the oscars, she's in everybody's house. they know how she acts. and again -- like her cousin. like a patty duke, you know? >> they are lovely pictures. >> they are. >> and she points out, they're just photoshopped. let's talk about anne hathaway. she's getting so much flak. it's almost the opposite effect, where it's a backlash for her. i don't know why people are being hard-core with anne hathaway. >> i went online to read the comments. and life being like high school, this is really like high school. the criticism, if there is any, is that she's kind of a theater girl. and in some people's minds, a little overly dramatic. and that's what she's getting heat for. two months of acceptance speeches are hard for anybody. you get up and say thank you, thank you. enough. >> that causes problems. >> and the whole dress issue. >> did she need to apologize? >> probably not. maybe ruffled feathers on the valentino side. >> she's a nice lady. really sweet. she's incredibly talented. come on. give her a break. >> don't need to drag her out in the town square. >> crossing off the days there's here at the program, as the royal bundle gets set to arrive. however, a geneticist in south africa, with tons of time on his hands could not wait. so, she actually believes the duke and duchess' child might look like as a toddler and a teen. your thoughts? >> i hope there was no state funding involved here. if it's news that prince william and kate will have a cute baby, that's money not very well spent. >> we'll be having fun on the slopes of some mountain. >> when the baby come, you can compare it to what they rendered and see if the geneticist knew. >> we have a new cast of "dancing with the stars." this might be the most entertaining cast we're going to see. some of the behind-the-scenes stuff is going to be funny and wonderful if nothing else. favorites right now? >> i'm going to pick dorothy hamill. she's good on her feet. she's likable. she probably trains hard and is serious. >> i say d.l. or wynonna. >> wynonna. >> i think d.l. i love him. he's funny. >> he was great in "soul plane." >> it's a huge personality cast. i don't know what the skills are going to be on the dance floor. but every one of them is funny and out there. and so, it's going to be good tv. >> don't sleep on the athletes. aly raisman, dorothy hamill, and jacoby jones, who is ready for this. larry hackett, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> have a great weekend, larry. appreciate it. now, to what could be the secret for a happy marriage. is it as simple as putting your relationship first and kids second? one celebrity correspondent is kicking up a controversy, after revealing she puts her husband before their baby. our cecilia vega has that story. >> coming up, we have adele, jennifer aniston. >> reporter: she's the white-hot entertainment reporter on e! he's a savvy businessman, the first-ever winner of "the apprentice." together, they are gulianna and bill. and their decision to conceive and use of a surrogate is the subject of a reality show. this morning, gulianna is at the middle of a mommy war. she said the secret to happiness in their marriage, is to put bill first and their child second. i always say to bill, you are my first baby. he was my first love and my first baby. and duke is my second baby. for these mom bloggers, one thing always comes first. >> babies take precedent over everything. >> if you ask me, actually, what the breakdown was, i would say it goes, my children, my girlfriends, then my husband. shh. don't tell him that. he doesn't know that. >> reporter: not so for radio host and relationship expert mel robbins. >> if you want a one-way ticket to divorce, put your kids ahead of your spouse. if you end up focusing 100% of your attention on the kids first, you and your spouse will start to resent each other. >> oh, god. no. >> reporter: gulianna and bill say they split the parenting duties and still have loots of date nights. white 5-month-old duke may not be king of the house. mom and dad say, we're stronger than we ever were before and imagined we could be. for "good morning america," cecilia vega, abc news, los angeles. >> hmm. >> you have to let people run their homes the way they want to run their homes. just my thoughts. now, completing the transition from friday to the weekend "gma" team, bianna golodryga is here this morning with, by the way, there's no doubt this is a hot-looking exercise trend, started by camilla, the queen of heels. >> earlier today, this is a hot segment, i took off the jacket to bring you this. it's hard enough wearing sneakers. you can imagine our surprise when we heard about heel hop. it's described as a low-impact full-body workout to shed pounds and sculpt that sexy you, i'll while wearing high-heel pumps. is this a craze in fitness or a workout disaster? it's a typical fitness class, complete with stretches, situps and stilettos. wait. stilettos? welcome to the high-intensity world of heel hop. camilla barrett is a professional dancer turned fitness guru. she's worked with some of the hottest names. from r. kelly. to 50 cent. >> i came straight out of the womb with high-heel pumps on. >> reporter: we decided to check it out for ourselves, with yours truly, one of the world's at least stiletto-savvy women, strapping on my mary janes. >> come on, russia. down and stretch. it's time for every woman to have this power. press. step. press. step. good. all right. >> reporter: are we ready to go? >> come on, girl. >> reporter: there were plenty of women all majs ready to kick up their heels. >> reporter: are you ready? we have a doctor in the house. >> oh, my goodness. >> reporter: before we knew it, we were on the mat, lifting our pelvises, rotating our arms and feeling the burn. it is more damaging in heels. >> oh, my goodness. that was awesome. >> reporter: some in the medical community aren't as pumped. one leading podiatrist expressed concerns about the class. >> they're an unable shoe for your body. exercising in them doesn't make sense in any way, shape or form. >> reporter: for camilla, it's all about the rewards opinion i love the way i look in heels. i wear them to work all the time. but as soon as i'm done, i take the shoes off and i'm in flats. >> i'm not in heels 24 hours a day. but when you have to get in them, you want to know how they will feel. to this day, i'm still performing in heels. >> reporter: i survived that. ladies, grab your heels and free weights. we're going to give you a taste of working out in heels with the sillito workouts at mbg fit in new york. lara hayes is here to show us the moves. you saw what we did in the piece. how is working out in heels really working out in sneakers? >> it's a different world. you're in a resistance posture. from there, you have to make sure you're properly aligned, your core is intact and your hips aren't moving all over the place. it's different. but as far as the stiletto workouts, it's different than other stiletto workouts because there's no dancing. there's no cardio. >> can you show us the moves? at home, if you've got your heels on at home, show us one or two. >> yes. >> so, using the weight. the ladies are here to help us out. and we're going to start off. are you ready? yeah. let's go. going to take it. good. hold on to it, from here. we're going to go for our ballet. take it back one. and two. squeeze the glut. three. >> i was waiting for it to come out. it is, if nothing else, it looks incredibly glamorous. ladies, we thank you. bianna, insightful, in depth reporting. come meet the world's most expensive stroller. keep it right here. >> now from abc7 news. santa cruz police officers are back on job hitting street as short time ago after taking two daze off to mourn the death of two officers in the department who were gunned down on tuesday. santa cruz county sheriff deputies who patrol the city in their absence stood in a line to welcome the returning officers back. and st. mary's college basket ball team is banned with a reduction in athletic scholarships. >> now a check of the only commute. this is pretty much the big issue, the fog this morning, slowing down the commute in places. here is the bay bridge toll plaza, and it is slow and the metering lights are on. >> we will check with mike nicco and talk >> floating city of san francisco again and the fog is thick around the bay area. but as you look down to the south bay, 87 in san jose, sunshine is already out. well talk about visibility, they are still thick around the area you see in gray here and we saw arrival delays in sfo at eighth of a mile with the lowest visibility. we are sunny in the east bay ♪ oh, oh, oh. ♪ yeah, yeah, yeah [ cheers and applause ] wonderful. wonderful to have. that is tori kelly. she is the new musical it girl. mellowed us out a little bit. over 30 million views on youtube since releasing her debut album. there's a very special reason she'll be performing a song that she will, coming up. good morning, america. on this friday morning. lara and george are off. great to have rachel and dan here, along with us. and d.j. irie. always good to have him spinning a little bit for us. it is deejay friday. >> watching him bob along with tori kelly. it has the d.j. irie stamp of approval. how much would you spend on a stroller to make sure you have the very best for your little one? just ahead, a look at, yep, an aston martin stroller. most exclusive in the world. and they're not give it away. >> the car's like $300,000. so, i don't know what the stroller is. but we'll find out. >> yeah. how about this? she's one of the world's most famous crime writers. how about patricia cornwell here. solving her own real-life mystery, the disappearance of her fortune. we're going to find out how she solved that. yesterday, we had "deals & steals." all of the companies participating in this week's "deals & steals," are extending the discount through the weekend. 15% of all of the deals are going to be the match. great products. donations for a great cause. go to goodmorningamerica.com on yahoo! to get the discounts. cannot wait to tell you the total. we're off to a great start. when you sign up to be the match, and wonderful that people are doing that, it doesn't cost you anything. but it costs be the match to send out the swab kits. those donations are going to make a huge difference. >> that's the irony there. they need more. and after yesterday, we thank you. keep at it all weekend long. first, an age-old question. what to get the baby who has everything? how about an aston martin, you say. don't know why you'd say it. you wouldn't need a driver's license. you're look right now at silver aston martin addition stroller. it's tricked out, among other things, italian leather, an air-ride suspension. i don't know what that is. it's a bargain compared to the actual car, which sam has conservatively at about $300,000. it comes in at a mere $3,000. here's abc's diana perez. >> reporter: it's the perfect ride for bond. baby bond, that is. the luxury carmaker, aston martin, is gearing up to give newborns a taste of the 007 lifestyle, this exclusive stroller. the new ride is fully loaded with aluminum alloy wheels and air ride suspension. features usually found on a luxury sedan. >> the handlebar is made with fine, italian leather. it's the same leather used on the aston martin steering wheel. >> reporter: aston martin and other brands appear to be cashing in on a recent celebrity baby boom. luxury brands are offering stars everything, from designer baby duds to diamond-encrusted infant tubs, like the one given to beyonce's daughter. as for aston martin, it says it will only make 800 of the high-roller strollers. the price, a cool $3,000. >> this is outrageous. there's no reason to have a stroller that costs that much money. >> reporter: still, aston martin is hoping some moms will think this bond-esque ride is worth the price, to keep their napping 007s from being shaken or stirred. for "good morning america," diana perez, abc news, new york. >> it's worth it if only for the shaken and stirred line. let's take a look outside. where are you, samuel j.? a final look at the weather. >> oh, josh, robin, we're out here in times square, with a crowd we love to call our family, that joins us every day. but particularly hot on fridays. how could you not start your weekend right here on times square. and know that if you come down today, the folks that are fighting colorectal cancer are here. we want to show you as you step outside your doors to enjoy the weekend. and maybe getting in your last moments of work. how about this gorgeous shot from mt. rainier. one of the most beautiful pictures above the clouds there. and willis, texas, just outside of houston. we give you that beautiful shot. and thank you for sending your facebook and twitter pictures. new york, chicago, d.c., detroit, all part of the cooler that gets in today. that drops to the deep south in >> all that weather was brought to you by aarp. joining us in the chill, is robin mitchell. a hot, new abc show coming out. "red widow." the simple extra nation is a soccer mom goes into the world of crime. >> her husband has been murdered in front of her 6-year-old son. and she will stop at nothing to protect her family. >> this is juicy. so, now, do you start out as someone who is crime-ready? i mean, ready to take it on? or does this become something that you get into? >> she actually is born into a criminal family. but she's been trying to live a different life. and you know, things change when this murder happens. and it's a catalyst to the rest of the story. >> i cannot wait to see it. can we see a little bit of it? do we have some we can show? let's see a little bit of it. >> we can make a plan to downsize. just tell them. okay? i can work at the marina like i used to. okay? >> i can't do that right now. things are complicated. >> i don't think you understand me because i will protect my children at any cost. and if you don't get out now, i will take the kids. and i will leave you. >> oh. it's not a spoiler to say that your husband dies in this. one of the writers who has seen this says, your character needs a drink. when she's -- >> oh, yes. >> do you think that's fair to say? >> if anyone needs a drink, my character does. >> you've become awesome and just a fearsome fighter in this story. >> i was very the temperature that you want so what do you do? he puts his hands under there, washes his hands. >> announcer: this is an abc news special report. and good morning, i'm dan harris in new york. we're breaking in to regular programming to bring you a special report because the president is about to speak from the white house about the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that are set to take effect today. and everything from defense to homeland security to food safety, this is called the sequester. it's the result of an ongoing budget battle with republicans in congress. the president he would an hour-long meeting with congressional leaders this morning. let go to jon karl. no break through in the meeting. >> absolutely no breakthrough. this is where the at mattic cuts not supposed to happen. the president and the campaign said this would not happen. but he had his first meeting on avoiding them today with congressional leaders, as you said, it lasted about an hour. the speaker of the house was here. the republican leader in the senate and the democratic leaders. the speaker of the house came out a few minutes ago and said the exact same thing going in, which is, that he is insisting there will be no tax increases. the president has said that the only way to get this done is in a balanced way, that would include tax increases. we'll' what happens. the white house has warned of dire consequences. they have told us these cuts will not be immediately felt. it will be some time. but we have heard warnings of meat shortages. long lines at airports. warnings that criminals could be set free as prosecutors are off the job. here's the president. >> good morning, everybody. as you know, i just met with the leaders of both parties to discuss a way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today. i told them these cuts will hurt our economy. they'll cost us jobs and to set it right both sides need to be willing to compromise. the good news is, the american people are strong and they're resilient. they've fought hard to kroefr from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we'll get through in as well. even with these cuts in place, folks all across this country will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going. but, washington sure is not making it easy. at a time when our businesses have finally begun to get traction, hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to america, we shouldn't be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on. and workers depend on, like education and research. and infratrustructure, and defe. it's unnecessary. at a time when too many americans are still looking for work, it's inexcusablinexcusabl. now, what's important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. the pain, though, will be real. beginning this week, many middle class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. businesses that work with the military, like the virginia ship builder that i visited on tuesday may have to lay folks off. communities near military bases will take a serious blow. hundreds of thousands of americans who serve their country, border patrol agent, fbi agents, civilians who work at the pentagon, all will suffer significant pay cuts and f furloughs. all of this will cause a ripple effect throughout the economy. layoffs and pay cuts mean people will less money in their pockets. less money to spend at local businesses. that means lower profits. that means fewer hires. the longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy. slow grind that will intensify with each passing day. economists are estimating that as a consequence of the sequester, we could see growth cut by 0.5%. it will cost about 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly. every time we get a piece of economic news, over the next month, next two months, next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we'll know that could have been better if congress had not failed to act. and let's be clear. none of this is necessary. it's happening because a choice that republicans in congress have made. they've allowed the cuts to happen. because they refused to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit. as recently as yesterday, they decided to protect special interest tax breaks for the well off and well-connected and they think that's apparently more important than protecting the military or middle class families from the pain of these cuts. i do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach. that asks something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates. all so that we can responsibly lower the deficit without laying off workers or forcing parents to scramble for child care or slashing financial aid for college students. i don't think that's too much to ask. i don't think it's partisan. it's the approach i pro posed for two years, what i ran on last year. the majority of the american people agree with this approach, including, by the way, a majority of republicans. we need republicans in congress to catch up with their own party and country on this. if they did so, we could make a loft progress. republicans in congress, there are some two privately say they would rather close tax loopholes than let the cuts go through. i know there are democrats who would rather do smart entitlement reform than let these cuts go through. there's a caucus of common sense on capitol hill. it's a silent group right now. and we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard. in the coming days and weeks, i'll keep on reaching out to them. both individually and as groups of senators or members of the house. and say to them, let's fix this. not just for a month or two but for years to come. because the greatest nation on earth does not conduct business in month to month increments or by careening from crisis to crisis. in the meantime, we can't let political gridlock around the budget stand in the way of other areas where could make progress. i was pleased to see the house passed the violence against women act yesterday. it is a big win for women and families and for the american people. it's a law that is going to save lives and help more americans live free from fear. it's something that we have been pushing on for a long time. i was glad to see that done. it's an example of how we can still get some important bipartisan legislation through the congress, even though there are fiscal arguments taking place. there are other areas we can make progress as well. i will continue to push for the initiatives. for high-quality preschool for every family that wants it. pushing to make sure we raise the minimum wage so it's one families can live on. keep on pushing for immigration reform and reform the voting system. and improvements on transportation. and i'm going to keep pushes for sensible gun reforms because i still think they deserve a vote. this is the agenda that the american people voted for. these are america's priorities. they are too important to go unaddressed. i'm going to keep pushing. with that, i'll take questions. julie? >> how much spont to you feel that you bear for the cuts taking effect? and is the only way to offset them at this point for republicans to depend on revenue or is there an alternative? >> look, we have already cut $2.5 trillion in our deficit. everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion. which means we have to come up with another $1.5 trillion. the vast majority of economists agree that the problem when it comes to deficits is not discretionary spending. we're not spending too much money on education. too much money on job training or we're spending too much money rebuilding the roads and bridges. we're not. the problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care costs. and programs like medicare. and what i have said, very specifically, very detailed, is that i'm prepared to take on the problem where it exists. on entitlements and do some things that my own party really doesn't like, if it's part of a broader package of sensible deficit reduction. so, the deal that i've put forward over the last two years, the deal i put forward as recently as december is still on the table. i'm prepared to do hard things and to push my democratic friends to do hard things. but what i can't do is ask middle class families, ask seniors, students, to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we snow we have a bunch of tax hoop holoopholes t benefitting the well off and well-connected. it's not fair, not right. the american people don't think it's fair and don't think it's right. so -- you know, i recognize that speaker boehner's got challenges in his caucus. i recognize that it's very hard for republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me. you know, sometimes i reflect, is there something else i could do to make these guys -- i'm not talking about the leaders. maybe some of the house and republican caucus members, not -- not paint horns on my head. and i -- and i genuinely believe there's an opportunity for us to cooperate. but, what doesn't make sense and the only thing we have seen from republicans so far in terms of proposals is to replace this set of arbitrary cuts with everyone worse arbitrary cuts. that's not going to help the economy. that's not going to mehelp grow or create jobs. as a number of economists have noted, ironically, it doesn't even reduce our deficit in the smartest or fastest way possible. so -- in terms of going forward, my hope is that after some reflection, as members of congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having, that they step back and say, all right. is there way for us to move forward on a package of entitlement reforms, tax reforms, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that don't work, coming up with a plan that's comprehensive and that makes sense? it may take a couple of weeks. it may take a couple of months. i'm just going keep on pushing on it. and my view is that ultimately, common sense prevails. but what is true right now is that the republicans have made a choice that -- maintaining an iron-clad rule that we will not accept an extra dime's worth of revenue makes it very difficult for us to get any larger, comprehensive deal. that's a choice they're making. they're saying it's more important to preserve the tax loopholes than it is to prevent the arbitrary cuts. what is interesting is speaker barren ju boehner, just a couple of months ago, identified the tax loopholes and tax breaks and said, we should close them and raise revenue. it's not as though it's not possible to do. they have suggested it's possible to do. and if they believe that, in fact, these tax loopholes and these tax breaks for the well off and well-connected are not contributing to growth, aren't good for our economy, aren't particularly fair and can raise revenue, why don't we get start snd w ed? why don't we do that? may be because of politics they can't do it right now. my hope is they can do it later. i want to repeat, because it's important to understand, it's not as if democrats are not being asked to do anything either to compromise. i mean, there are members of my party who violently disagree with the notion we should do anything on medicare. and i'm willing to say to them, i disagree with you. because i want to preserve medicare for the long haul. and -- we're going to have some tough politics within my party to get this done. this is not a situation where i'm only asking for concessions from republicans and asking nothing from democrats. i'm saying that everybody's going to have to do something and the one key to this whole thing is trying to make sure we keep in mind who we're here for. we are not here for ourselves. we're not here for our parties. we're not here to advance our electoral prospects. we're here for american families. who have been getting battered pretty good over the past four years. are just seeing the economy improve. businesses wheare just starting see some confidence coming back. and this is not a win for anybody. this is a loss for the american people. and -- again, if we step back and remind ourselves what it is we're supposed to be doing here, then hopefully, common sense will win out in the end. >> you're saying this is a republican problem and not one you bear spont for? >> give me an example of what i might do. >> i'm just trying to clarify. >> i'm trying to clarify the question. i have put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts, serious entitlement reforms, goes right at the problem that is at the heart of our long-term deficit problem. i've offered negotiations around that kind of balanced approach. and so far, we have gotten rebuffed because what speaker ba boehner has said we can't have a dime's more worth revenue. what should we do? this is a room full of smart folks. zach? >> mr. president, the next focal point seems to be the continuing resolution that threatening the government at the end of the month. would you sign something to continue the squers and continue to fund the government? how do you reach the limits of your persuasive power? is there any other leverage you have to convince folks this is not the way to go? >> i would like to think i still have persuasive power left. let me check. look, um -- the issue is not my persuasive power. the american people agree with my approach. they agreed we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the question is, can the american people help persuade their members of congress to do the right thing? and i have a lot of confidence that over time, if the american people express their displeasure about how something is working that eventually, congress responds. sometimes there's a gap between what the american people think and what congress thinks. but, eventually, congress catches up. with respect to the budget and keeping the government open, try to -- for our viewing audience to make sure they were not talking in washington gobbledygook. what is called the continuing resolution, essentially an extension of last year's budget into this year's budget to make sure basic government functions continue, think it's the right thing to do to make sure we don't have a government shutdown. that's preventable. we have a budget control act, right? we agreed to a certain amount of money that was going to be spent each year. and certain funding levels for our military, our education system, and so forth. if we stick to that deal, then, i will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. it's a deal that i made. the sequester, are additional cuts on top of that. by law, until congress takes the squ sequester away, we would have to abide by the additional cuts. no reason to have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to the arbitrary spending cuts. >> you could sign a budget that would continue to fund the government? >> i'm not going to -- i never want to make myself 100% clear with you guys. it's fair to say i made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. there's to reason why that deal needs to be reopened. it was a deal that speaker boehner made as well and all the leadership made. if the bill that arrives on my desk is reflective of the commitments we made, i would sign it because i want to make sure we keep on doing what we need to do for the american people. jessica? >> to your question, what could you do, first of all, couldn't you just have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal? >> you know, the -- i mean, jessica, i -- i am not -- a d k dictator. i'm the president. the mitch mcconnell or john boehner say, i have to go catch a plane, i can't have secret service block the doorway. i understand. and -- and -- i know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom floating around washington that somehow even though most people agree that i'm being reasonable, that most people agree i'm presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don't take it means that i should somehow do a jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what is right. well, they're elected. we have a constitutional system of government. the speaker of the house and the leader of the senate and all those folks have responsibilities. what ki can do is i can make th best possible case for why we need to do the right thing. i can speak to the american people about the consequences of the decisions the congress is making or the lack of decisions that congress is making. but, ultimately, it's a choice they make. and -- the -- this idea that somehow there's a secret formula or secret sauce to get speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell to say, you know what, mr. president, you're right. we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for serious entitlement reform and spending cuts programs we don't need. you know, i think if there was a secret way to do that, i would have tried it. i would have done it. what i can do is i can make the best possible argument. and i can offer concessions. and i can offer compromise. i can negotiate. i can make sure that my party is willing to compromise and is not being ideological or thinking about these in terms of political terms. i think i have done that and will continue to do that. what i can't do is force congress to do the right thing. the american people may have the capacity to do that. and in the absence of a decision on the part of the speaker of the house and others to put middle class families ahead of whatever political imperatives he might have right now, we're going have these cuts in place. but, again, i'm hopeful about human nature. think over time, people do the right thing. i'll keep on reaching out and seeing if there are other formulas or other ways to jigger this thing into place to get a better result. >> what do you say to the people like major bloomberg who argues there is posturing in the plan, big layoff, a lot of people out of work and thinks that the effects of the spending cuts are being overstated by the administration? >> i'll give you an example. the department of defense right now has to figure out how the children of military families are going to

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130228

mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: i rise to support the underlying bill. the programs funded have proven effective over the past two decades in achieving real and meaningful reductions in domestic violence. victims' advocates in my district and around the country use this funding for battered women shelters, support for runaways. in my home state, the peff coalition against rape currently operates 50 rape crisis centers that provide services to victims of sexual violence. these centers utilize public awareness campaigns and prevention education to combat the root causes of sexual assault. essential institutions such as this are counting on us in this body to ensure that vawa funds remain available to support their often life-saving work. i'm proud to serve as a council of a nonprofit organization that provides financial assistance to victims of violence crime and their significant others. another outstanding institution in my district is turning point in lee high valley, which maintains as a 24-hour help line which provides a constant resource for victims and their loved ones. it provides safe houses, court advocacy, prevention programs and transitional programs to help them into independent life. our community depends on these organizations and these organizations depend on vawa. vawa is also improving law enforcement's response to domestic violence. in 2007, the pennsylvania commission on crime and delinquency conducted an evaluation of vawa services training for officers and prosecutors' program, stop grants. this program is designed to promote and enhance approach to improve the criminal justice system's handling of violent crimes against women. the final report indicated that police with stop training will work with victims' advocates. court personnel, including prosecutors and judges, are demonstrating a heightened level of sensitivity toward victims' abuse. employing personnel from beginning to end has resulted in an improved arrest policies, investigations, prosecutions, hearings and follow-up. this study demonstrates the positive effect that stop grants have had across the board in pennsylvania's criminal justice system where domestic violence is concerned. vawa has substantially improved our nation's ability to combat violent crime and protect its victims, protect -- providing a strong safety net across the united states. incidents of rape have dropped nearly 20% from the law's enactment in 4-to 2011. the rate of intimate partner violence has declined 64% over that same period. however, much work remains to be done. the c.d.c. estimates one in four men and one in seven women have experienced severe physical violence by their partner at one time. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: happy to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: congress must re-authorize vawa to prevent more innocent victims from becoming victims and to provide critical services for those who do. further delaying this crucial legislation does this congress no credit and leaves state and local service providers facing uncertainty about their ability to continue protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. the senate voted to re-authorize the violence against women act with a strong bipartisan majority, and i would strongly encourage the house of representatives do the same to support that underlying bill. vote yes on the underlying bill. we'll move the re-authorizing legislation to the president's desk immediately. it's the right thing to do. it's about time we do it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. -- the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm very happy to recognize our distinguished democratic whip of the house, mr. hoyer. he was there in the 1990's when we worked to pass this legislation on the appropriations committee. he and rosa delauro and congresswoman nita lowey and i worked to fund the violence against women act. he's been there for -- on this issue for a long time. i'm pleased to yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to congratulate the leader for her efforts in getting us to this point. today after two months i think we're going to do something very positive and do it in a very bipartisan way. i think that's excellent. i think america will be advantaged. every american, women, yes, but every woman will be advantaged. house democrats support the fully inclusive re-authorization of the violence against women act which passed the senate by a bipartisan vote of 78-22, as has been referenced. the majority of republican senators and all republican women senators voted in favor. that bill represents a compromise. i urge my colleagues to defeat the partisan amendment version so we can pass the senate bill. i voted for the rule, which allows us that opportunity. let us take it. the change -- changes house republicans made in their version significantly weaken its provisions. i want to say some republicans. i want to make that clear. not all. and protecting victims of domestic violence and empowering law enforcement to keep our people safe from these crimes. the house republican bill owe mitts critical protections for native americans, for lgbt americans and for immigrants. furthermore, the house republican bill removes protections for students on campus, victims of human trafficking and those who've experienced rape or stalking. why? why not protect everybody, all americans? when we fail to protect all victims, abusers can get away with the abuse and repeat it. maments, congress ought not to be playing -- madam speaker, congress ought not to be playing with the lives of women and all those who suffer from domestic violence. we it owe it to the families, law enforcement, prosecutors to make sure that the violence against women act work and can meet the challenges we face today. that's why we should defeat the weaker house republican alternative and instead pass the fully inclusive version passed by senate democrats and republicans. i expect it to be a bipartisan vote. it is a good day for america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. and just to clarify, on the house substitute that we'll be considering later, it ensures that money goes to victims by increasing accountability. it guarantees that grants to combat sexual assault are distributed equitablely. it improves the ability for law enforcement to prosecutor abusers. it better protects indian women from domestic violence, and it safeguards constitutional rights to ensure justice for victims. and at had time i'm pleased to yield to our policy chairman, the gentleman from oklahoma, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, madam speaker. i do want to stand in support of the house proposal today on protecting women across this nation. this is something that protects all women. i know there's been some interesting accusations that we're trying to exclude people. this is for all women and all places. as a dad of two daughters, i get this. i understand this. my two daughters were on this house floor not very many weeks ago getting a chance to visit to be here and be part of the process and meet great ladies on both sides of the aisle and also to interact with people and see how laws are made. i want them to know in the days ahead, laws here that are done are for every person and that we stand for every family. this is a family issue. this is a women's issue. this is also a state legal issue. it's a community issue, and it's also a national issue that's right that we deal with today. i want to encourage organizations in oklahoma city, like the w mbings ywca, who have a simple theme of eliminating racism, empowering women, but they work every single day to be able to help women that are in situations that they have got to escape out of. i also want to stand up for the 39 drives in oklahoma that i've meat with some of the -- 39 tribes in oklahoma that i've met with some of the tribal leaders. from my constituents, i want them to know that if there's domestic violence that occurs, and the house version assures of this, if they live in indian country, if they work in indian country, if they're married or dating someone were indian country, that this law protects them from that and makes clear through all of section 900, i encourage people to read, to go through the details of how we stand beside the tribes and how we stand those around indian country, there needs to be prosecution and protection but most all, we need to stand beside every single family to do what is right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields and the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm going to yield to my colleague in a minute. the ywca u.s.a. supports the bipartisan senate bill that we are urging members to support and reject the house bill. with that i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from illinois who came to congress fully committed to passing this legislation, mr. quigley, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. well, if this is for all, and this is for everybody, why attempt to strip out essential protections for immigrants, tribal and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims? do they not feel the same pain? once again, we have to stand up and vote for equal protections for all victims. the senate seems to get what this had body does not. we are all in this together. these victims are not nameless, faceless members of some group of others. they are our friends, our neighbors, our family members. we are a nation built on justice, fairness and equal protection. we are all stronger when we uphold these ideals and protect the most vulnerable among us. the senate-passed vawa embodies these principles and protects all victims. we should pass it today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to a former prosecutor and the lady from indiana -- four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mrs. brooks: thank you. i rise in support of vawa. yelling, name-calling, black eyes, bruises, belts, broken bottles, children scared and crying in the corners, crying for it to stop, the lies and cover-up us to friends and family and then the abuser gains the control and says i'm sorry. i love you. i won't do it again. i'll change. and the victim stays again and again and again year after year. the cycle of violence goes on from generation to generation just like brittany from tipton county, indiana. abused by her drug addict mother. married a man that was a victim of child abuse. and the cycle continued. brittany's husband verbally and physically abused her while their children watched. whether you are in a poor family, rich family, whether you're in the city, country or on the farm, we as members of congress have the power and the control to change her life. when brittany finally took control and made the call, it was vawa funds that made sure that the cops that responded recognized it. and i've done those ride-alongs and they are the most dangerous calls cops make. when vawa funds are involved, they keep shelters and transitional housing stays open. when vawa has funds, it trains sexual assault nurses who help those victims through the humiliating exams they have to endure which are so important so we have the evidence to put the abusers behind bars. when vawa funds are involved, we have advocates and prosecutor offices and in courtrooms who are trained to help them through the painful, long, difficult court process. when vawa funds are involved, we have counseling services needed for the victims and their families to heal. vawa gives victims a fighting chance to gain control of their lives. vawa doesn't pass in my district, alternatives incorporated will have to lay off two of their five victim advocates, shut down one of their offices and won't be able to serve the 700 victims in rural counties that they served last year. vawa is a program that works. it's one of those federal government programs that works. this bill is not a perfect bill. no bill that congress passes is perfect, but i will tell you the victims being attacked can't wait for perfect. the three women and one man who die every day at the hands of their intimate partners cannot wait for perfect. isn't there anything that congress -- i'm a freshman -- and isn't there anything that congress can agree on and get behind? i think we need to show the american people we can give control back to the women, men and children who are subjected to the horrors of violence at the hands of someone who supposedly loves them. this shouldn't be about politics and about political party control. in my short time in congress, i've seen too often that we lose sight of the people that we are here to protect and to serve. . it is about control. that's what their lives are about. i urge every member to think of the victims. take those statistics, replace them with the brittanys in your district. take control away from the abusers, provide them to -- back to the victims with the control they need. can't we be the voice that they don't have? we as members of congress have the ability to give control back to the victims, to give control to the cops. to give control to the sexual assault nurses. to give control to the victim advocates. to give some to the shelters and countors. i'm asking this -- counselors. i'm asking this congress to show the american people that we care. i do. please pass this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i have listened attentively to some of the comments made by those who support the house version of vawa, and they use words like all, as the distinguished majority leader said, all women. not true in the republican bill. not women if you're gay, if you're from the immigrant community, or if you happen to be living on a reservation. i hear an appeal from the freshman member very eloquently stated, why can't we work together and put partisanship aside. that's exactly what the senate did, 78-22, a majority of the republicans in the senate voted for the far superior bill. we have never had a perfect bill, you are absolutely right. the very far superior bill that expands protection as opposed to the house bill which not only is not as good as the senate bill, it diminishes protections already in the law. and i heard the gentlelady talk eloquently about money and where it needs to go. it's sad to say that with the sequestration, 20 millionle toars -- $20 million according to a new estimate from the justice department will be cut from the violence against women account. that means approximately 35,927 victims of violence will not have access to lifesaving services and resources. the fact is people have come together from the senate. the house agrees with their bipartisan position. the president stands ready to sign t it's just the house republicans that are odd people out on this. it's hard to understand why you think some people are all. it's not. that's why it's really important to reject the house version and support the senate version. with that i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman fromp california, member of our freshman class, a former prosecutor. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. violence against women and preventing against women means preventing violence against all women, especially those from the lgbt community, especially those from the immigrant community. i'm here to support the bipartisan senate bill that was passed. and oppose the house amendment. i was a prosecutor in alameda county for seven years. i worked day in, day out with women who came in as violence victims. people who had been battered. it's only because of the vawa, violence against women funding that we have in our office that allowed our victim advocates to provide them with the emotional and physical service these needed that we could even begin to put them on the track of healing. only because of this funding. so right now it is incumbent upon us to make sure that this funding is available as we move forward to all women. mr. swalwell: all women. violence against all women must be protected and we must have funding that shows that we will go aggressively after their abusers and support our law enforcement and their efforts to do that. today's bipartisan bill gives us an opportunity to show that this house can do big things when we work together. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please point to anywhere in the house bill that coverage for anyone who is denied, to specifically state where the coverage denied. the house covers all victims. this bill does not exclude anyone for any characteristic. not only does the bill specifically prohibit discrimination, it directs the attorney general to make a rule regarding anti-discrimination efforts as he sees fit. moreover, the stop grant is re-authorized to permit funding to go toward men as well as women. the house bill enhances protections for native american women. the house bill requires the justice department to cross designate tribal prosecutors as federal prosecutors in 10 federally recognized indian courts -- tribes. this allows tribal prosecutors to move forward more quickly in federal court. the house bill provides a constitutional round for indian tribes to prosecute nonindian offenders against native american women. this is critical for victims to assure defenders do not have their convictions overturned. the house bill contains increased accountability provisions. the house bill mandates better coordination among grantees and federal employees to ensure money is spent effectively and efficiently. this is in response of allegation of a miss use of funds. it limits administrative expenses and salaries to 5%. ensuring that money goes to victims and law enforcement. this ensures that money goes to victims not bureaucrats. at this time i'm happy to yield to a champion for all human rights, the gentleman from new jersey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the violence against women act offered by congresswoman mcmorris rodgers. i just want to point out something that little attention has been -- attention has been paid to. a little over a decade ago i authored the trafficking victims protection act of 2000. the landmark law that created america's comprehensive policyle to combat modern day slavery. the state department trafficking in persons office, now led by an ambassador at large with a complement of over 50 dedicated and highly trained people. the leahy trafficking amendment to s. 47, title 12, guts the office and represents a significant retreat in this struggle to end human trafficking. the only way to fix it is to pass the mcmorris rodgers amendment, go to conversation -- conference, and get this fixed. the tip office is an extraordinary mechanism and has had a huge impact worldwide. in addition to best practices, the office monstors labor and sex trafficking and makes recommendations for whether or not countries be ranked tier one, tier two, or tier three. for over a decade, the trafficking in persons there is a flag ship in our struggle to combat human trafficking. the leahy amendment cuts the authorization for the tip office from about $7 million down to $2 million. it eviscerates the tip office. no doubt about that. it also shifts responsibilities to the regional bureaus. we have had problems over the last decade as my colleagues know, the regional bureaus have a whole large portfolio of issues they deal with. when they deal with those issues, trafficking is on page 4 or page 5 of their talking points. the tip office point has now been demoted significantly. i hope that -- i would point out that when i first did the trafficking bill, there was huge pushback from the state department. they didn't want human rights in general and absolutely they did not want the trafficking in persons issue to be dominant and center stage. that's what the office does. it is a step backward for combating human trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to mr. conyers of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers will be controlling the time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i recognize mr. ellison from minnesota for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: madam speaker, i'd like to talk to you about lucy. lucy is not the name of the person i'm referring to but she's real. i can't use her name because lucy still lives in fear of her abuser. a man she was married to. lucy is from a nation in west africa. and the man who was abusing her physically and sexually and mistreating her would tell her, threaten her based on her immigration status to the united states that she was hoping to obtain. he would threaten her and tell her i'm going to hold this against you. don't you dare leave me. and the violence against women act could self-petition process was a lifeline and a savor -- savior to her. she was able to explain the extreme violence she lived through and suffered through all the time, and she was able to separate from her husband and seek a way to become a citizen and stay in this country and get rid of her abuser. sadly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ellison: house version rolls this protection back. that's why you should -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. happy to yield to a champion, former judge who has worked on these issues for many years, the gentleman from texas, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. violence against women is all of -- is awful. i think we can all agree with that. and behind the scenes in homes throughout america, behind closed doors, bad things are happening in those families. it is violent. it affects the spouse, the children, and the quality of life of our community. today the house of representatives can do something about that. to take america safer for women, primarily. and their children. we have two choices before us today. the house bill, the senate bill. but there's another thing going on behind closed doors in america as well. and that's sexual assault that is occurring in america. i spent time on the bench as a judge in criminal cases in texas for 22 years, and one of the greatest scientific, forensic discoveries was d.n.a. and it's helped prosecute sexual assault cases. d.n.a., when those outlaws commit the crimes against primarily women and children, they leave d.n.a. evidence. it's examined and we find out who the criminal was. here's the problem. there are 400,000 d.n.a. rape kits that have not been tested. some going back 20 and 25 years. they are so old when the outlaw is determined who it is, they can't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has run. 400,000 cases where rape victims are waiting for us to just analyze those sexual assault cases. that concept is called the safer bill sponsored by carolyn maloney and myself to try to fix that issue by taking money in one legislation and put it in the safer legislation to analyze those 400,000 cases so victims know who committed the crime and also outlaws go to prison and not get a freed you ride because there is not money to test those cases. that safer bill is in the senate version. and i encourage the house of representatives to vote for the safer bill because it is in the senate legislation and that's just the way it is. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from washington reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the chair, ranking member of our judiciary committee. i rise in support of the senate bill, senate s. 47, which re-authorizes vawa and passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22 on february 12. it is also an honor to be next to the the gentlewoman from wisconsin who has really championed this bill. i rise specifically to address section 904 which provides tribal governments with jurisdiction over the abuse of native american women on tribal lands. the specifics set forth by senator udall in a recent article were alarming. they are 2 1/2 times more likely to be raped, one in three will be assaulted, and three out of five will encounter domestic violence. and the criticism, the criticism we have heard against why the senate version of this bill should not pass is because they say it doesn't afford due process. all we need to do is to look at the defendant's rights as set forth in the tribal court criminal proceedings under icra, the indian civil rights act, and tloa, tribal lands and orders act of 2010. the rights are there. support the senate version. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlelady from washington is recognized. . mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i am pleased to yield to the vice chair of the democratic caucus from new york, joe crowley, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend from sdroict, michigan, for yielding me this time. madam speaker, it's been over 500 days since the violence against women act expired. 500 days. and every day that's past without a vote, my colleagues and i have been asking ourselves, what are we waiting for? are we waiting for our colleagues in the senate to have a strong bipartisan vote and send us a bill worth voting on? wait a minute. they've already done that. but maybe we're waiting for a bill that strengthens the violence against women act? sorry. the senate's already done that as well. or maybe we're waiting for support from hundreds of state and local and national organizations. but wait. we've already had that with the passage of the senate bill. my colleagues, it's time to end this wait for our mothers, for our daughters, for our friends so they can get the protection and the service that they deserve. because let me tell you, the abuses are not waiting. today we have a chance to pass the actual senate bill, the bipartisan, commonsense legislation that has been waiting for a vote. so let's vote no on the substitute amendment, support the underlying bill and send this to the president's desk. i don't believe my colleagues, if they saw a lesbian woman being beaten by their neighbor, that they wouldn't want to have that violence stopped. i don't believe my republican colleagues, if they saw an undocumented person, even an illegal alien, being beaten by her husband, that they would not want that stopped. i don't believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they saw a native american woman being beaten or abused that they would not want that stopped. why don't they have that in their legislation? the senate bill does. let's stop this back and forth and pass the senate legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves, and the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. just to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the house, the republican majority in the house, passed legislation to re-authorize the violence against women act in may of last year. funding has continued. congress, including the republicans in the house, have supported and continued to fund these important programs that is $600 million. no program has gone unfunded as we've continued to focus on the important work of getting this bill re-authorized. i would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize for one minute the distinguished the gentlelady from california, susan davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, madam speaker. at last, at last, madam speaker, like americans all across the country, i'm glad this chamber has put the senate's violence against women act to the house floor for a vote. i ask my colleagues to support this bill and oppose the republican substitute. if we pass a strong re-authorization, women can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that congress has got their backs. every woman deserves protection and justice. i'm glad that the senate bill closes the gap in current law by extending that protection to native americans, lgbt and immigrant victims. and contrast, as we've heard, the republican substitute inexplicitly continues to exclude these groups and put them at risk, and that is exclusionary and it is hurtful. let's swiftly pass the senate vawa and send it straight to the president's desk for his signature. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on s. 47 and to stand up for all victims of domestic violence. they've waited far too long for this day. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, two weeks ago the senate overwhelmingly passed a strong bipartisan re-authorization of the violence against women act to extend much-needed protections to all women of domestic violence, including immigrants, native americans and members of the lgbt community. domestic violence victims and their families have waited for far too long for the house to act to re-authorize vawa and to provide victims of domestic violence with important resources to help end this violence. and it's critical that we ensure that every single victim of domestic violence, no matter what they look like or where they come from or who they love has access to these critical tools and resources. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, one in four women will be victims of domestic violence during their lifetime. each year 15 million american children are exposed to domestic violence and all the dangers of this violence. have we really come to the point that we can't persuade every single member of congress that violence against all women is indefensible and that we have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power to stop it? do we really want to say some women, some group of women are not worthy of protection against such violence? i hope not. i urge my colleagues to pass the strengthened senate version re-authorizing violence against women and to protect all american women from violence. i thank the gentleman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the lady from tennessee, a champion for all women and families, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. i thank the gentlelady from washington for the leadership that she has brought to this issue, and i also stand to thank leader cantor and the leadership that he has placed on this. you know, it's an incredible thing when you think about we still need the violence against women act. and i think for so many of us who have participated in giving birth to sexual assault centers and domestic abuse centers and child advocacy centers, we realize that for far too long domestic abuse was something that nobody ever wanted to talk about. it should be swept under the rug. it should be hidden behind the four walls of a house. it was not something that was addressed as a crime. but we all knew it was a crime and we knew it needed to be addressed and we know that this act and the grants that have been provided to our state and local law enforcement agencies have allowed so many, so many people the safe harbor that was needed for their opportunity. now, i stand here today to support our republican alternative and the amendment that we have placed on this bill making certain that in a fiscally responsible, targeted and focused way that those who need access to the help, the assistance, the funds are going to be able to receive the help, the assistance, the funds, the focus and the attention that they are going to need. i also want to draw attention to the fact that we have -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. if the gentlelady from washington -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i'd be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. blackburn: i think it is north worthy that we also -- noteworthy that we also put attention on stalking, the need to address this, that we look at the need for additional education so that someday we can say yes, indeed, local law enforcement is fully equipped to handle the issue because the problem has been arrested. all too sadly, madam chairman, the problem has not been dealt with, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. no woman should have to live in fear of violence in this country. one of my first actions in congress was to co-sponsor the violence against women act, which was authored by my colleague, gwen moore. her bill took critical steps to strengthen the ability of our local law enforcement and service providers to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. her bill went to great lengths to ensure that all women in our country would be protected under the bill. the senate passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis her bill. that is why i find the political games being played by some republicans today to be frustrating. my colleagues find it to be frustrating. and my constituents find it to be frustrating. i do not understand why, madam speaker, you would eliminate provisions to protect women from immigrant communities, 30% of which i represent in my district in congressional district four, and women from native american communities are inappropriately dis-- or inappropriately discriminate women based on sexual orientation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. horsford: i ask my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: the balance of our time, 4 3/4 minutes, we now give to the distinguished the gentlelady from wisconsin, gwen moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for the remainder of the time. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee. i've listened very carefully and very patiently to all of my colleagues in the house. and it seems like everyone in the chamber is against the violence against women. it's just which women we want to protect remains the -- to be the question. you know, for the last 18 months, it appears that i have lived in some sort of twilight zone where there's sort of like that program on tv "sliders" where there are alternate realities. this debate recalls that alternate reality, when we hear a support of the house amendment over the senate amendment, we hear that all women are protected. for example, the senate bill supports lgbt victims in the senate bill, but the house bill strikes lgbt women as underserved communities and it also strikes the language that would have them as a protected group to not be discriminated against. so i think that the distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways -- find areas in the legislation that are wanting, and i would submit that is one area that is wanting. the distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways that are the substitute is wanting and the senate bill is superior. and i would say with respect to supporting tribal victims, you know, we say that we give lip service to wanting to support tribal women, but when you stop and think about it, in 1978 the supreme court in the case olephant decided that policies divest tribes over nonindians and the substitute seeks to affirm that even though that was modified and overturned in the u.s. supreme court in u.s. vs. laura which said that in fact if this body voted we could in fact confer upon native americans the authority to give them plenary power to enact legislation to relax restrictions on tribal sovereign authority. . we have the power to allow them to enforce necessaryic violence laws and rape laws on their land. and we so need it, madam speaker, because if you are a tribal woman, a member of a tribe, say for example the band river chippewa in my state and you were raped on native land, tribes don't have any authority over that perpetrator if he's a nonindian, even if he's your husband. the local police in that area don't have any authority. the county sheriff doesn't have any authority. the state trooper can't come in and arrest them. and the only person that has any authority over that non-indian is some federal agent in madison, wisconsin, 500 miles away. which is why there has been a 67% declination of prosecutions of sexual assault. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. all time has expired from the gentleman from michigan. the gentlelady from washington is recognized for the remaining 30 seconds. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you. happy to yield the remainder of our time to the attorney, the wife, the mom, the lady from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. >> in closing i want to make sure we are clear. mrs. roby: the republicans are committed to standing for all victims. this bill, our amendment, strengthens penalties for sexual assault. sexual assault improves the federal stalking statutes. provides for enhanced investigation of sexual assault and provides services for victims. most importantly our amendment is constitutional. and it will stand up constitutional muster to the court. the senate passed a weakened bill that has a real chance of being overturned by the courts. i urge support for the house amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. the clerk: amendment in the nature of of a substitute offered by mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington consisting of the text of rules commit print 113-2. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 83, the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mitts mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. we heard strong bipartisan support over the last hour for the violence against women act. standing for all victims, i remain convinced that the house amendment is the strongest re-authorization of vawa, and the one that should be sent to the president's desk. it's a responsible bill that protects all victims of demessic violence. -- domestic violence. it's a bill that holds offenders fully accountable for their crimes, and it is a bill that respects the constitution. it puts the focus on the victim where it should be. it provides the necessary services and resources to victims while at the same time strengthening investigations and prosecutions to lock away offenders for a longer period of time. what it does not do is engage in the type of divisive, political rancor that many have tried to leverage or exploit. republicans want to re-authorize the bill that protects women. not promotes partisanship. over the last few months, the debate over vawa has been muddled with partisan attacks. in fact, just last week comments were made that claimed the house bill will not provide critical protections for rape victims, domestic violence victims, human trafficking victims, students on campus, or stalking victims. or that, quote, the house republican leadership just doesn't get it, end of quote. none of these assertions should be -- are further from the truth. and it is this political bickering and these baseless accusations that keep congress from doing the job to protect those that need the most protection. because this bill is about people not politics. it's about rebecca from my home near spokane valley who broke up her fiance after a domestic dispute. two months later he shot and killed her and her 9-year-old son. it's about michelle of north spokane who was stabbed to death by her husband, jeffrey, while her 11-year-old son watched the entire thing. this bill is about rebecca and michelle and the millions of women like them all across this country who need protection. that's what this bill will do. it ensures that all vulnerable populations are protected. no one is excluded from or can be discriminated against. the bill ensures that resources are available for critical services. it ensures that victims and their families have access to housing. it ep sure that investigations and prosecutions are more effective in putting offenders away for a longer period of time. it ensures that native american women have access to justice on indian land. and in such a way that prohibits offenders from getting off the hook. i'm disappointed that even some of our country's most influential leaders, the one that is have the ability to move this legislation through congress and get it to the president's desk, have dismissed this house bill. it's the responsible step forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. conyers: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. ladies and gentlemen of the house, the controlling objective here is that if we reject the substitute and instead adopt the bipartisan and comprehensive senate bill, the bill will go directly to the president for his signature. and so i rise in strong opposition to the substitute and support the senate bill, the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. and ilogical yield briefly to our distinguished gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: for what time does the gentleman yield? mr. conyers: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement by our friend and colleague, tom cole, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. moore: he says he does not support the house substitute to vawa because it does not adequately recognize sovereignty or give them the tools they need to combat violence against women, unquote. i yield back to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. mr. conyers: i thank the gentlelady. members of the house, i was here in 1994 when the violence against women act was introduced to provide critical lifesaving assistance for women, children, and men. this law's been the centerpiece of our government's commitment to combating domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and the results have been striking. in the nearly two decades since the landmark legislation was passed, the rate of intimate partner violence against women has dropped by nearly 2/3. on two occasions since its enactment, the members of both bodies have worked on a bipartisan basis to extend the violence against women act's protections and make necessary improvements. unfortunately last congress we weren't able to agree on a bill and the authorization was allowed to lapse. this month the senate took the unique opportunity to pass a strong bipartisan legislation by a vote of, what was it, 78-22. all the women in the senate. and so it incorporates years of analysis of the problem and the solutions proposed by the law enforcement victims and the victims service provider. in my judgment it's much stronger, and i urge my colleagues to join with me, the 78 senators, and the president, the more than 1,300 organizations in supporting s. 47, the violence against women re-authorization act. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields -- the gentleman reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. pleased to yield two minutes to the chair of the women's policy committee and the lady from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague who has done such a wonderful job on this issue. and i do rise today in support of the house substitution to the violence against women act. mrs. ellmers: i urge my colleagues in the house to vote yes on that as well. every now and then here in the house we get the opportunity to rather than speaking about issues of cutting budgets and talking about issues that many people don't think affect them directly, we have the distinct opportunity today to hold everyone up and fight for a cause for women, for men, for families, for children. this is one of those times that we are not necessarily talking about policy, but we are talking about people. this is a very, very real issue, and it has strong bipartisan support that we move forward on these issues and that we take this off the table. however when we are talking about the senate version and we are talking about the house version, in my opinion the house version is superior to the senate version because it holds up all people. it does not segment individuals into certain groups and subcategories. it is all inclusive. violence across this country is pervasive. women across this country are in families that they are trying to protect and they feel the necessity to reach out, and we must help them. i know there are many in this house who believe that there's not a federal nexus on this issue. however let's talk about the times that we might have internet stalking across state lines. that becomes a federal nexus. we must protect all victims. we must protect the victims of tribal violence as well, and i believe the house version is, again, superior to the senate version in that area as well. madam speaker, this is a very, very important issue, and again i urge my colleagues to follow along and vote yes on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 30 , cited as the pandemic and all hazards re-authorization act of 2013, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i am pleased to recognize now the former schare of the subcommittee on the -- former chair of the subcommittee on the constitution house committee, the gentleman from new york, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: this bill is about women. it is about our sisters and daughters. it is about combating violence that no human being should ever face. rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking. by offering an amendment that will further delay and even endanger passage of the bill, republicans are not just standing up for the men who abuse immigrants or men who rape native americans, they are delaying justice and counseling and health care and protection for everyone. the republican amendment would roll back protections for immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse by making it harder to obtain new visas. new restrictions would deter undocumented immigrants from reporting assault and from cooperating with police leaving victims vulnerable. the bipartisan senate bill would end sexual orientation and gender for eligibility of grant programs under vawa and include sexual orientation and gender identity as classes. the republican amendment by delete provisions appears to say if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual, trand gender it's ok to beat you up. vawa will not help you. this is the republican idea of equality in the 21st century. and the approval of the republican amendment would delay the bill for months or weeks or months. it could even kill the bill altogether as it did in the last congress. i hope that is not the true motive behind the amount. however the act that republicans in congress have been waging a war on women from the moment they took over control of the house does make you wonder. . it is time to reject this cynical employ -- ploy. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the republican amendment and for the senate bill. we don't need a retrogressive house bill that goes back on existing protections and endangerers passage of any bill. the senate did a fine job on a bipartisan basis. we should pass its bill without delay. and not engage in partisan retrogressive conduct. i yield back and i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. the gentlewoman reserves and the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i recognize a senior member of the house judiciary committee from texas, sheila jackson lee, and i recognize -- i yield to her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i thank the gentlelady, congress woovepl moore, for her -- congresswoman moore, for her leadership and thank her for bringing reality to this day. the last 18 years we have had the cover of the violence against women act and i was glad to be here in the re-authorization time frame. but i'm also very glad to claim that the amendment that was offered by congresswoman moore and conyers and porter and myself in the rules committee prevailed. for we in fact introduced the senate bill. but the leadership of the house, as it relates to the democratic members, was strong. because we introduced the bill just like it. but let me tell you what is happening with the legislation from the house side, the substitute is fuzzy legislation. it's almost as if you name your son and daughter jane and john but you start calling them girl and boy. you take away the definitiveness of who they are. just in a couple of months before one of the coeds, a young college student, a young woman college student at the university of virginia was murdered by her boyfriend. and so in the bill that we want to see passed, the senate bill, we have protections for college students. we have a definitive protection for native american women, many of whom are marrying nonnative americans and many times those cases are not -- non-native americans and many times those cases are not prosecuted. you have to define that they have the jurisdiction to prosecute these cases. with respect to immigrant women, isn't it ridiculous that you must contact the abuser and get the corroboration of the abuser? what does that say to that immigrant woman who needs to tell what is happening to her, how she's being held hostage because of her immigrant or nonimmigrant status? i say to you that every nine seconds a woman in the united states is assaulted or beaten by stalkers or her partner. every year in the united states 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners, even though we've made great strides in improving it under the violence against women act. one in five women have been raped in their lifetime. four women have been the victim of severe physical violence. we need the senate compromise. we need the senate bipartisan bill. don't vote for fuzzy legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves and the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a number of letters from advocacy and nonprofit groups in opposition to the house substitute and in support of the senate-passed bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you. the gentlewoman from washington continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield to mr. johnson of georgia, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. today, madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this hyperpartisan and inhumane house substitute version of the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. this version is inhumane and cynical because it removes certain classes of individuals from the protections of the act. as guaranteed by the senate version. this inhumane house version removes all references to gender identity and sexual orientation, ignoring evidence that domestic and sexual violence also affects lgbt victims at equal or greater levels than the rest of the population. it also limits protections for native american women and omits some protections for immigrant women. why would we want to exclude these populations from coverage? vote no on the house substitute and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to choose judy chu, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, to close the debate on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. chu: i rise to oppose the house amendment. for nearly 20 years congress worked on a bipartisan basis to expand and improve the violence against women act. on three separate occasions we found common purpose in protecting survivors of domestic violence. today we will try again. but the senate bill protects immigrant, lgbt and native american victims. the amendment takes this all away. right now an immigrant woman who fears deportation could be terrorized by a violent stalker. she would have no choice but to continue to live every day in fear. the senate bill fixes this by giving this immigrant woman a legal means by which to save her life. this amendment would deny that protection. the point of this law is to protect the vulnerable, not to cherry pick who matters. it's time to return to bipartisanship and protect victims. it's time for the house to pass the senate bill as is. we must oppose this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan's time has expired and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm happy to yield the remainder of our time in closing to the gentleman from south carolina, a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> she got her ph.d. in biology. then she became a patent agent with the largest law firm in south carolina. mr. gowdy: and she still wasn't done. at night she would sit in the kitchen and study for the lsat. she was going to go to law school. she wanted to be a doctor and a lawyer. but her greatest accomplishment what her character. she was smart, hard working, a source of joy and inspiration in the lives of everyone who worked with her and knew her. which is a little bit of a luck, madam speaker. liz could be speaking to you from the floor of the house of representatives, with just a little bit of luck she would be representing south carolina in congress. but she's not in the house of representatives, madam speaker. she's in a cemetery in fort wayne, indiana. her husband couldn't stand her success. so he abused her. she tried to escape and she almost made it. she made it to the backdoor. where he met her with a shovel and he broke every single bone in her face. and then he nearly decapitated her, leaving her in a pool of blood in the kitchen where she used to study for the lsat. i run into her mom from time to time, madam speaker, back in south carolina. she comes back for a victims rights service and she's just like liz. warm and compassionate. and she always asks, what can i do to help? imagine that. a mother who lost a daughter in such a horrific way wants to help and that got me wondering, well, maybe we should be asking what we can do to help, because we really can help. we can provide women a safe harbor. we can provide the means to leave abusive relationships. we can provide women the counseling that they need. we can accelerate the prosecution of sexual assault cases so women don't have to wait and wonder and worry about whether or not they're going to be abused again before the case gets to trial. we can do all of that but i think, madam speaker, we can do more. when my daughter was little, she would ask me to look under her bed for monsters. and i did. but as our little girl is, -- girls grow into women, we realize the monsters are not under the bed, they're in the bed and in the den and in the kitchen and on the college campuses and walking the halls of the high schools and on the computer and on the phone. and for some women, specialy -- especially today, the monster is this broken political system that we have, a broken political system which manufactures reasons to oppose otherwise good bills just to deny one side a victory. the house version protects every single american, period. but it will not get a single democrat vote because it is our version. welcome to our broken political system. i never ask a victim if she was a republican or a democrat. i never ask a police officer if he or she was a republican or a democrat. i never ask a counselor if she was a republican or a democrat. i never asked the parent of a victim if they were a republican or a democrat. because there's some things that ought to be bigger than politics. and protecting people who cannot protect themselves ought to be one of them. and i had hoped that the house bill would allow us, madam speaker, to join arms and walk on a common journey of protecting people who are innocent and cannot protect themselves. and i had hoped, madam speaker, that this fractured body could possibly be healed by something that ought to be nonpartisan like protecting women against violence. and i had hoped, madam speaker, that just for one day, just one day we will stop scoring political points against each other and try to score political points for other people. and i had hope, madam speaker, that for just one day this body could speak with one clear, strong voice for all the women who were too tired and too scared and too hurt and too dead to speak for themselves. i had hope that today would be the day. maybe next time, madam speaker. maybe next time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from washington's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. the amendment -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 166, the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: senate 47, an act to re-authorize violence against women act of 1994. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. conyers: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 286. the nays are 138. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to -- to remove all co-sponsors from house resolution 88. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday the house is not in session. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions on monday and tuesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider a resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. i expect a resolution to also include bipartisan bills to fund the departments of defense and veterans affairs, thus providing who more flexibility to our military and allowing the pentagon to engage in new starts, something it would not be allowed to do under a c.r. mr. speaker, before i yield back my time, i'd like to highlight two additional items. on tuesday the house passed legislation to establish a nationwide academic competition in the stem fields. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. cantor: this competition will encourage entrepreneurship and provide a unique opportunity for america's high school and college students in each congressional district to showcase their creative capabilities. i thank chairman candice miller and ranking member brady for their hard work in making this bipartisan program possible. and i look forward to the success of the competition for years to come and the benefit it will provide our institution. lastly, mr. speaker, i'd like to highlight the congressional civil rights pilgrimage to could -- occurring this friday through sunday in alabama, led by congressman john lew wills. a true american hero -- lewis. a true american heeow and champion of civil rights and freedom. a bipartisan delegation of members will participate in the three-day journey through alabama, concluding with the commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march across the bridge in selma. alongside the democratic whip, i am honored to participate in this pilgrimage and reflecting on the sacrifice that shaped the greater democracy we live in today. and with that, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information. i also thank him for his reference to the march over the bridge, from selma to montgomery. of which we will commemorate. that march occurred on march 7, 1965. yesterday we had the honor of dedicating and accepting a statute in memory -- statue in memory of rosa parks. rosa parks, of course, known as, in many respects, the mother of the civil rights movement that led to america perfecting its union. to allowing and making sure that every american, irrespective of race or color or nationality or religion, could be treated equally. it's appropriate that we participate in this march across the bridge to recall the -- this country's commitment in 1965 to the voting rights act which ensured that every american would have what is intrinsic in the definition of democracy, the right to vote and the right to have their vote count. and i look forward to being the honorary co-chair with the majority leader of this march, with a true american hero who is the chair, the leader, the person who showed such extraordinary courage not only on august -- excuse me, on march 7, 1965, but years before that and every year thereafter, including until today. so i thank the gentleman for calling attention to that march and i look forward to participating with him in alabama this weekend. now, mr. leader, as all of us know, automatic draconian, in my view, irrational cuts will occur starting tomorrow as a result of the so-called sequester. i did not see any legislation on the floor for next week which would obviate the happening of that event, of the sequester, although i do see that there is some desire, apparently, to make sure that the defense department and the department of veterans affairs has the ability to manage those cuts in a way that will be least detrimental. i would ask the gentleman, there are of course 12 other -- excuse me, 10 other appropriation bills , there are 10 other major agencies and multiple departments and offices that will have a problem similar to that of the department of defense and the veterans administration. is the gentleman aware of any efforts that will be made to accommodate the domestic side of the budget? mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i would say, mr. speaker, as the gentleman knows, the house has acted twice to offer alternatives to what we agree with is a very wrong way to go about cuts. which is the sequestration measure. but unfortunately both times the senate rejected or refused to take up the alternatives. i'm aware the other body is anticipating at least -- anticipating to at least attempt to vote on an alternative, both of which are protected to fail in the state in -- predicted to fail in the senate. so i'd say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that he's right in saying that our intent is to try and provide the flexibility for the defense department in terms of its appropriations, as well as the milcon bill. and we do so because there's bipartisan agreement around those two bills. and i would say to the gentleman, if bipartisan agreement somehow is reached in other bills, i would say to the gentleman, we certainly would like to be able to take a look at that. but i believe, mr. speaker, it's prudent for us to try and do the things that we can do right now so that we don't have to bear the burden of the wrongheaded way of controlling spending which is that sequestration. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me only observe that the bills which the gentleman has now discussed for three weeks running, that we've had colloquies, are no longer available to either the senate or the house. he knows that. they were in the last congress and they died in the last congress. there has been no legislation in the 59 days that we've been here, put on this floor, and only the majority leader can put legislation on the floor. no legislation which would have an alternative to the sequester. and in fact, notwithstanding some of the representations, mr. leader, that have been made, mr. speaker, there was a bill on this floor on july 19, 2011, which was called cut, cap and balance. 229 republicans voted for that bill. that bill had as its fallback, if the objectives of the bill were not reached, sequester. that was substantially before, many days before the president and through the person of jack lu talk about the making that a part of a piece of legislation that we needed so that we did not default on the national debt. and for the first time not only since i've been serving the congress, some 32 years, but the first time in history as a result of that action of coming so close to defaulting on the national debt this country was downgraded by a single point. the gentleman talked about the stem bill that was passed and i voted for, he voted for, the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans voted for it, to help our economy. that event substantially hurt our economy. mr. speaker, the inability to get to agreement on this sequester is hurting the economy. and i will tell my friend that we've offered three times to have a bill considered as an alternative to sequester which cuts spending, raises some additional revenues. i know the gentleman is going to give me a lecture about raising taxes. i understand that. but i would urge the gentleman, let a vote happen on this floor. let the house as you said in 2010 work its will. that's what the speaker said he wanted to do. let us vote on an alternative. not just blindly go down this road of sequester, not blindly go down this road that the gentleman has just agreed with me and we agreed together, i think most of us agree, the sequester is irrational. it should not happen. in fact, it was put in the bill on the theory that surely we wouldn't let it happen. but in 59 days we've had no bill on this floor. all the gentleman says is a bill that's gone and dead and bury, that we can't consider, that won't make a difference, that will not get rid of the sequester. i regret that, mr. leader, because i think we can. frankly we can next week put alternatives on the froor. if you have an alternative, put -- on the floor. if you have an alternative, put it on the floor. but that's what the american people expect. they expect us to solve problems, and they sent us to vote on policy. mr. van hollen, who's the ranking democrat on the budget committee, has asked three times, mr. leader, to bring a bill to this floor, an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. it seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, ben bernanke said it would substantially hurt the economy, that we don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something we did yesterday -- actually more than three month, four months ago, that is dead and gone. we need to do something now, and we need to come together in a bipartisan basis. i might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this congress by the president. every one of those bills were passed in a bipartisan basis with an average of 168 democrats voting for it and an average of 124 republicans voting for it. we saw a perfect example, mr. speaker -- mr. leader, on the floor today of making very good policy. how did we do it? we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, the majority leader, that we could do that as it relates to the sequester if we would bring something to the floor, have a vote on it and in my view in a bipartisan fashion we could in fact set aside this irrational, negative sequester and move on to a rational, fiscal policy. i'd be glad to yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on it. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. first of all, there would not be a bipartisan vote on the democratic suggestion as to how to deal with the sequester. as the gentleman rightfully suggests, that measure will include tax increases. we heard a lot of talk about balance, that we need to approach the situation in a balanced way. well, the president has enacted $149.7 billion worth of tax increases for this fiscal year. sequestration results in $85.3 billion worth of spending reductions. as you can see, mr. speaker, the balance is clearly in favor of tax increases. taking people's money and then allowing washington to decide how to spend it when most people realize that government is never the one best to spend and allocate someone else's dollars, which is why we insist on having a limited government providing the necessary support and roles as it should and not continuing to take other people's money and deciding how we spend it. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that the senate refuses to take up whatever we send them. they refused again and again. so we've got a real problem, that somehow one house does its work. twice this house has passed bills with alternative measures to address sequestration, and a significant portion of both of those bills, one of which i sponsored, were provisions taken out of the president's, himself, budget. not spending increases but reductions that the president says are ok but yet still the senate failed to take them up. so there's a meeting tomorrow at the white house, mr. speaker, and i know the gentleman shares the desire to perhaps have that men -- meeting make the senate act. the house can produce a plan and has twice to replace this sequester. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he's concerned about the economy and so are we very concerned about the economy. we're concerned about the rating agencies outlook -- agencies' outlook on our situation. but i remind the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the warnings from these rating agencies are not warnings that are wholly addressed by just coming to some deal. those warnings from the rating agencies are directed at our doing something about the underlying fiscal problem this federal government has which are the mountains of debt caused by the growth and the unfunded liblets in our entitlement programs -- liabilities in our entitlement programs. and the gentleman knows we failed to come to agreement in 2011 as to how to deal with those unfunded liabilities which is why the sequestration is in place. we got to have that deal on the unfunded liabilities, because that's what those warnings are about, that's what we should be concerned about, not raising more taxes. those warnings are not about raising more taxes. it's about getting rid of the out-of-control liabilities that are racked up because of the spending which is out of control. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it doesn't get at -- we've been here 59 days in this congress. not a single bill has been brought to this floor which will deal with the sequester. not one. as a matter of fact, we've only met 17 of the 59 days this year . so when my friend laments the fact that the sequester is going into effect and he talks about bills he doesn't deny they're dead and gone. senate can't take them up. so many folks want us to read the constitution of the united states. i'm for doing that. it's article 1 that gives to the house, as the leader i'm sure know, the responsibility to raise revenues and to pass appropriation bills. it's the house that needs to initiate legislation, and we guard that pretty jealously. we guard it as -- we just passed vawa. there was a lot of discussion about vawa having -- in the last congress that passed overwhelmingly was delayed because very frankly they had some money effect in that bill. we said it was subject, therefore, to objections on our side. we haven't met very often and when we do meet the only real bills that are passed are passed in a bipartisan fashion which happened today. and when we talk about balance -- and i get very frustrated and take somebody else's money. do you want to take it out of your pocket? was the constitution of a united states which formed a more perfect union designed to take the chinese money or european money and fund our education, our health care research, our highways, our national security? of course not. it is our money. each one of us individually works hard and we apportion a part of our earnings to the common good, to the common defense, to the common investment in our future, in education, in innovation, in infrastructure. yes, we do that. and i will tell my friend, and he well knows this, i get somewhat frustrated when i hear this. when i served in this congress from 2001 to 2008 when the economic policy that was in effect was all your party's economic policy, and you cut revenues substantially and you increased spending substantially and we went from surplus to deep deficit. we need to solve that. i agree with the gentleman. we need to solve it, but we need to do it in a bipartisan basis. that's why i point out the only bills that have of substance that have been signed by the president that weren't suspension bills on which we all agree were bipartisan bills which averaged 124 republicans voting for them and average 168 democrats voting for them. both parties joined together to solve problems. that's what needs to happen. and i will tell the gentleman he can talk about confidence all he wants, talk about why the rating agencies downgrade us. there were a number of reasons. but the greatest reason was, and they articulate it, standard & poor's articulated, they weren't confident that we could work together to solve problems. and we're not doing that. the gentleman continues to not want a balanced program. every group, every group that i've seen or read about or talked to people about has said you cannot get from where we are in the deep debt that was created in the last decade to where we need to be, a balanced fiscal and sustainable plan for america for the years to come without addressing both the spending side and the revenue side. the example i use is we are selling a product, mr. leader, that many of us voted for it and you want to accommodate on the defense side, which cost $23 -- costs $23, and we are pricing it at $15. no business in america or in the world could survive with that imbalance. we need to bring that in balance, and you're not going to get to the 15% of revenues that we're collecting or now maybe 16% or 17% simply by savaging either defense or nondefense spending or entitlements. so i would certainly hope, mr. leader, that we would come together. you and i have talked about this a lot. people go home and talk about how bipartisan we are going to be. we are prepared and we understand there are going to be things we have to do that we won't like. on your side there will be things to do that you won't like. that will be a compromise. that's the definition of a compromise. our country needs it. americans want it. i would hope that we could in the coming days, not only address the sequester, but address the need over the next 10 years to get this country back to balance where we were in 2000 where we had a balanced budget, the debt was coming down and in fact people were concerned that it was coming down too fast. unless the gentleman has further remarks, i'll yield back. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: the gentleman loves to go back and talk about that period from 2001 to 2008 and the fact that there was too many tax cuts in place and without the control in spending. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, because my point, i tell the leader, is that we didn't pay for what we bought. we kept buying but we didn't pay. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i was saying that. too many tax cuts in place, and i agree with the gentleman, mr. speaker, not only on the fact that there were tax reductions and cuts in place but the fact there wasn't a control in spending. that is a problem here, mr. speaker. but ironically, the gentleman has consistently been in support of and just voted to extend 98% of those tax cuts. and so what we're saying right now is we got to do something about the spending. you just got $650 billion in tax increases, mr. speaker, over the course of the next 10 years through the fiscal cliff deal. i just prior spoke about the imbalance. this year, f.y. 2013, of the amount of new revenues versus the actual spending that is being projected to be reduced in the sequester. i agree, let's get back to balance. let's go ahead and increase the spending reductions. washington does have that spending problem. the gentleman agrees. so, you know, again, i think it's unfair to say that there's just, you know, no agreement on the fact that we ought to go and reduce tax rates and taxes because the gentleman supports doing that. so let's talk about balance. you know, and we got the highest level of revenues, it's been reported that we have the highest level of revenues coming into the federal government this year ever. and the gentleman does know as well the spending is out of proportion in terms of history, in terms of the percentage of g.d.p. so why can't we focus on that? we got to get this economy growing. and the gentleman is correct in saying the government needs to be adequately funded, but we got to take a look at what we're funding. that's what we're talking about in replacing the sequester is prioritizing. what are the functions of government? and the sequester, it does cut spending, but we'd rather cut it in smarter ways. you know, again, i hear the gentleman talk about he'd like to be here on the floor passing bills. we would, too. get the senate to act. we have a bicameral process here, and the senate has not acted. the white house, the president hasn't even sent up his budget, mr. speaker. the president has that obligation in law. has not presented his budget to the house. the senate refuses to do anything. and what's the white house doing right now? the president's been going around the country campaigning for the past two months scarring people, creating havoc. that's supposed to be leadership? the president says to americans that their food is going to go uninspected and the borders will be less patrolled and unsafe. his cabinet secretaries are holding press conference and conducting tv interviewses, making false claims about teacher layoffs. i just feel that people ought to take a look and say, hey, these sequester spending levels, not the sequester, but the spending levels, and say, in 2009, was food not inspected? because that's what the claim is, mr. speaker. that somehow if we were ever to reduce spending at all we couldn't have food inspectors. did we have a border patrol -- any border patrol agents in 2009? of course we did. of course we did. they will be funded at the same levels under the sequester. and that's our point. replacing the sequester with smart cuts. but the other side, mr. speaker, and the gentleman and his caucus won't join us in doing that. because all we hear again and again is raise taxes. and i have said, as the gentleman knows, we can't in this town be raising taxes every three months. that's just not the way we can get this economy back on track. did the f.a.a. shut down in 2009? that's the claim. that's the claim that the president's saying. shut down the f.a.a., stop air travel as we know it. or give us higher taxes. that's the false choice that this president and his administration are out there hawking. we can't have that. that's not leadership. let's come together. i agree with the gentleman, but stop the false choice. stop the games and let's get it done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. he said a lot and i could have a lot of comments on that but i will say this, as long as the gentleman believes it's only us saying that we need a balanced program, he will oppose it because we are democrats. if the gentleman listens to independent advice all over this country, from all sorts of sources, republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, they will say, you need a balanced approach. we need to cut spending, we need to restrain spending and we need to balance the cost of what we provide with the income that we have. every business person, small, medium and large, understands that concept. we have not followed it and we did not follow it in the last decade. i regret the fact that the gentleman doesn't like the president going around the country and telling the truth. saying what the consequences may well be. now, are they going to be on march 1? no, but will they inevitable occur if the sequester stays in place? the answer to that is an emphatic yes. so i think the president is going around the country saying, look, these are the alternatives . and saying that the senate won't act or the president won't act -- people did not elect me, i will tell you, to make the president act or to make the senate act. they didn't think i could do that. what they did think i could do is make steny hoyer act. and if i were the majority leader, they expected me to have the house act. even if people didn't agree with me of legislation i put on the floor. but they expect us to do our job , not to cop out, with all due respect, to the fact that the president's not doing something or the senate's not doing something. we have a responsibility here in this chamber, the people's house, as representatives of 435 districts, to do our job. and if the other folks don't do their job, we can lament that, we can criticize them, we can inform the american public of that. but we cannot say that's why we're not acting. so i would hope that next week we would in fact act and bring legislation to the floor and i'd be, as the gentleman knows, my friend knows, i'm for a big deal. i'm for getting us to that $4 trillion that the simpson-bowles recommended. because i think that will give real confidence to our economy, really grow businesses and put our country on a fiscally sustainable path and i will yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia -- pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize the more than 20,000 individuals who represent the pennsylvania special olympics. the special olympics is about people helping people. it's a global movement that has flourished due to the commitment and passion of its local volunteers and the determination of its participants and its athletes. in march of each year the pennsylvania special olympics hosts more than 300 athletes and 100 coaches in the state floor hockey tournament. this year's two-day competition and team and individual skills floor hockey will be held at my alma mater. where i will have the opportunity to attend and lend a helping hand on saturday, march 2. i'd like to commend the pennsylvania special olympics for their years of hard work, from ex panledsing an ever-growing -- expanding an ever-growing volunteer base, to help athletes develop individual fitness and courage. i look forward to sharing these experiences with other local community and wish all of our participants the very best in this week's competitions. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, the sequester is scheduled to go into effect in less than 24 hours and i stand today to call out a particularly objectionable concept that this is not taking effect today that. will this is somehow not going to affect people today, it's going to roll out over time. that's just not the case. if you're a familiar who is facing -- family who is facing layoffs or furloughs or you're an admiral or general who's trying to figure out how to protect the country and you have to spend time worrying about what jobs you're going to stop and who you're going to lay off, or if you're that scientist, that budding scientist who is thinking about where you're going to do your science, whether it's here in a country that invests in science, or abroad, someplace where it looks like you'll get better opportunity, those impacts are happening today. and that's why today we should not adjourn. we should be staying here, working on the sequester, avoiding these cuts. let's stay at work and get this problem solved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask permission to suspend the rules and greas the -- address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the president seems to think that the only way for us to replace the arbitrary spending cuts known as the sequester, the sequester which the president's own operatives came up with, is to enact more tax increases. should we really be talking about raising taxes when so many examples of government waste abound? do we need to spend $1.2 million to have the national science foundation pay people to play video games? do we need the e.p.a. to give away over $100 million in grants to foreign countries like china? or what about bankrolling tax tv? the i.r.s. spends $4 million of our tax dollars every year to run its very own full-service television studio. instead of raising taxes, let's get serious about cutting waste. the house has acted to replace the sequester with commonsense cuts and reforms. it's time to see a serious plan from the president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, it's a beautiful day back in my hometown of olympia, washington. of course it's raining cats and dogs, but that's what passes for beauty in our corner of the world. it's a beautiful day at the national wildlife refuge near olympia and it's a beautiful day at mount rain ear national park which you can see from mie my neighborhood. but, mr. speaker, if we -- see from my neighborhood. but, mr. speaker, if we don't replace sequestration, i'm worried about how many more beautiful days there are ahead. if we don't replace sequestration, then some of the $7 -- 7.5 million visiters who are scheduled to visit one of our 13 national parks aren't going to be able to. they have already announced that they are closing the visitor center at mount rainier. all of this because congress can't or won't do its job. mr. speaker, it is a beautiful day in washington state, but i don't know for how long. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise pursuant to the order of the house of today to express my strong support -- i rise today to express my strong support for the airport. unfortunately with the pending sequester, the pending aviation administration announced that they may close 238 control towers, including the tower at my local airport. lakeland lyndon regional airport hosts a fly-in that celebrates aviation and the second largest convention in the world. mr. ross: this sun and fun fly-in is also the largest convention in the state of florida. it provides a $50 million economic impact to the region that year. the potential closure of the tower is unacceptable. as we know, president obama initially proposed the sequester in 2011. i voted against its creation and voted twice to replace its arbitrary cuts. americans deserve real solutions and genuine accountability. improper payments by the federal government exceeded $115 billion in 2011. surely the president is willing to address those improper payments before allowing the sequestration cuts to take place. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to bring awareness to the automatic trigger cuts known as sequestration and the impact it will have on domestic violence programs in california. i thank my colleagues who voted today for a commonsense piece of legislation known as the violence against women act. this landmark legislation comes on the eve of looming budget cuts that will have devastating impacts on domestic violence prevention programs throughout california, which already operate on tight budgets. mrs. negrete mcleod: the obama administration estimates almost $1 million of funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence in california will be cut, resulting to 3,000 fewer victims being served. although we have made significant strides towards safeguarding all women by passing this important bill, we must ensure that we continue to strengthen those programs by avoiding the sequester. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. president obama's sequester will take effect tomorrow. because of the president's irresponsible -- irresponsibility to cut just pennies of waste for every $1 washington spends, the men and women of the 122nd air national guard in my district face furloughs. across the globe our national security will pay the price for washington's failures. mr. stutzman: how did this happen? it seems that during his chicago-style campaigning, president obama forgot that his primary responsibility is to serve as commander in chief. today, instead of working to replace these security cuts with cuts to waste, president obama and harry reid are trying to pass a tax hike in the senate. a tax hike that the nonpartisan c.b.o. says will increase our deficit for the next two years. it seems that instead of solving the problem, president obama and his allies are only making it worse. mr. speaker, it's time to get serious about the $3 billion we borrow every day and cut spending in a responsible way that saves the american dream and keeps our national security strong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> again, thank you, mr. speaker. unless we do something, friday will be a day that none of us will want to see but that very few of us seem to have the colonel or convention to prevent. mr. lowenthal: today, we have two options. devastating meat cleaver cuts or political courage. last week in my district i met with leadership of the lows alimmediate oast joint forces -- los la -- alamedos joint forces base. this would put this base at risk. who are we talking about. these are our first responders, our firefighters, our citizen soldiers. these are the people that will be affected by sequestration. if we must choose between cuts or political courage, i choose political courage. we must come together to do what is right. i ask for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that eliminates sequestration. i support congressman van hollen's house resolution 699, and i ask for unanimous consent to bring this bill to the floor. thank you and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers, as recorded on page 752 of the house rules manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the gentleman's request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is one of those moments where you come up here for one minute and i wanted to share a certain frustration. mr. schweikert: particularly the vote we had here in the house. i come from arizona. we have 22 tribal communities, 21 actual designated reservations. i've lived almost my entire life alongside the salt river indian community, the sophisticated tribe with wonderful outreach into the community. they've come light years in the last 10. they've done amazing things. we've been working with that community and congressman cole's office trying to work with language that would work in vawa and yet congressman cole, congressman issa were not allowed in the process to offer their amendment. and that was great frustration for me because there was months of labor put into that. there is some irony here. i heard folks on the right and a lot on the left saying the self-determination, the court process, for those tribal communities. ok. great. are we now ready to have this body step up and help our tribes in arizona, sophisticated, manage their own finances, their own health care, because they're asking for that self-determination? thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to give voice of the concern i'm hearing from the constituents in my district when it comes to the sequester. el pasoans are worried about canceled flights, delays in processing social security and veterans' benefits and fewer resources for law enforcement. they are also worried about their jobs. for example, i represent 20,000 workers and their families who are going to be facing furloughs. mr. o'rourke: we're concerned that wait times at our ports of entry will be four to five hours and furloughs resulting in fewer customs and border protection officers. this undermines those employees and their families in the trade that supports nearly 100,000 jobs in the el paso region. mr. speaker, let's fix this. let's vote on legislation that will replace the sequester with responsible cuts in revenues. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 699. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. mr. o'rourke: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that i would be allowed to revise and extend my remarks and address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today about the impending cuts to the federal programs that are harmful to our national security, education system, transportation, infrastructure and economy. mr. veasey: we will see discriminant cuts to special education and a loss of four million meals for seniors and debilitating cuts to health care for our military families. the cuts caused by sequestration will go into effect tomorrow. unless we vote on a resolution today, these cuts will deeply hurt the constituents that i represent in the north texas district -- congressional district 33, and also citizens across the nation. i was not in congress when sequestration was passed two years ago as part of the republican cut, cap and balance deal. there is still time to prevent these harmful across-the-board spending cuts. i ask unanimous consent to bring up house resolution 699, the balanced bill to replace the sequester that includes both spending cuts and revenues. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously said, that request cannot be obtained without appropriate clearance. the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to really applaud the house for renewing today the violence against women act. mrs. maloney: this will protect our citizens. it's important legislation. i had the privilege of helping to offer the original one in 1994 with patricia schroeder and louise slaughter and joe biden and we re-authorized it twice. i'm pleased it passed today. i ask unanimous consent to place in the article that was published in the huffington post today and the comments i wasn't able to give today as i had a conflict with another hearing. i'm pleased the bill included two bills that i offered. one, the safer act, with congressman poe, in a bipartisan way, that would process the d.n.a. rape kits that are sitting on shelves across this country gathering dust, they'll process it and hopefully put rapists behind bars and protect women from future assaults from rapists. these particular rapists. and also the campus security act, which would require campuses to keep statistics on violence on the campus and steps they are taking to protect their citizens. also, the trafficking and persons act, to crack down on sex trafficking. it's an important bill. i applaud my colleagues for passing it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to share my deep concern with my colleagues of what these dangerous sequestration cuts mean to my community. mr. garcia: i have the honor to represent the suburbs of miami-dade and the florida keys. we're a community of middle-class families and my constituents will be hurt if the leadership of the congress fails to act. here are a few examples. south florida's economy depends on the flow of tourists. it is an engine which fuels us. if sequestration goes into effect, t.s.a. and customs agents will be furloughed. passengers throughout the country will miss their connecting flights and we will have fewer tourists and hurts small business. up to 600 civilians who work in the florida keys naval base will be furloughed. this means less money for everyday needs in the economy of the keys. students at schools like miami-dade college and f.y.u., will see their funding cut. the leadership in this congress owes the american people an explanation of why we've gotten to this point. there is a better alternative that will create jobs. house resolution 699. i respectfully ask for unanimous consent to bring it up, this balanced budget bills replaces sequester with balanced cuts. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair has previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman yields back. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 1366-b of the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2013. and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the following individual on the part of the house of the congressional advisory panel on the governance of the nuclear security enterprise. the clerk: ms. heather wilson of albuquerque, new mexico. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 276-l and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following members of the part of the house of the british american interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. petri of wisconsin, mr. crenshaw of florida, mr. aderholt of alabama, and mr. whitfield of kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's anountment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 6913 and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following member on the part of the house to the congressional executive commission on the people's republic of china. the clerk: mr. smith of new jersey, co-chairman. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. in this chamber we've heard over the last several days numerous speakers who have spoken quite eloquently about the impact of sequestration on their communities, their constituents across this country. and i dare say there are many americans who have no idea what sequestration is, but they will come to know, mr. speaker, exactly what sequestration is when they figure out that of the range of programs and services that impact them and their communities and the federal government is taking a step backwards because of republicans' failure to bring forward a balanced approach to dealing with our budget. in fact we've just been moving from one crisis to the next crisis. today in this house chamber we did something very special. we passed the violence against women act, the re-authorization of the violence against women act which first passed in 1994 and had enjoyed bipartisan support up until recently. we ended up passing the senate version of the violence against women act, which frankly we could have done about a year and a half ago, but for failure in this house chamber. in passing the violence against women act, we on one hand provided for authorizing funds to support shelters, services and programs for victims of domestic violence, many of them women, all across this country. and on the other hand, march 1 begins sequestration looms and in fact is happening and we take away with one hand what we provided with the other. under the violence against women act that was just re-authorized today by a bipartisan vote with overwhelming support from democrats, 20 -- but tomorrow $29 million will be cut were the very shelters and programs that we authorized today. six million women all across this country face domestic violence, and yet the programs and services that they depend on from the federal government will be ripped away in a sledgehammer approach, across-the-board cuts, arbitrary cuts to the budget beginning on march 1. workers and families all across this country have truly grown weary of watching this and past congresses create, kick down the road fiscal disaster after fiscal disaster. sequestration is going to rattle our very still recovering economy and take an ax hammer to so many agencies and programs that are struggling to meet their workloads to deliver services for the american people. sequestration is estimated to lower the u.s. economic output by $287 billion. in the fourth congressional district of maryland that i havehe

Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Hannity 20150611

>> jerry seinfeld sounds off on political correctness. welcome to "hannity" the attorney for the officer spoke out earlier today about his client's resignation in the aftermath of the out of control pool party in texas. watch this. >> eric's actions at the craig ranch neighborhood were only an attempt to investigate the report of violent assaults. his purpose was to interview as many persons as bauble to determine who was involved. he believed that those who fled were possible suspects. he was not targeting minorities. in fact he also detained a white female who you do not see on the video. his efforts to gather information was hampered by some teenagers who were instructing others to defy police instructions. >> the video seems to back up what the attorney was saying. we have slowed it down for you tonight. now after the detaininging the teen girl who was reportedly defying his orders officer casebolt was surrounded and two people came up behind him forcing the officer to draw his weapon. joining us now is adrian martin the person you see on the left side of the video who came up behind the officer and his attorney keith harris is with us. thank you for being with us. adrian let me start with you, i look at the video, he is dealing with this young girl who is on the ground. and then there you come up and you're doing some little dance kind of provoking him. you're almost behind him. you're out of his sight of vision. why were you doing that? >> first off, mr. hannity i'd like to start off by saying if you look at the video correctly,b there is several people that are surrounding the officer. >> you're one of them and you're doing a little dance, obviously trying to provoke and get in the middle of the police doing his job. why were you doing that? >> no, sir. >> no? >> what had happened -- >> were you asking -- >> what was the little dance youwortyou were doing. >> as you can see in the video i'm trying to communicate with the girl saying we're going to call her mother. >> really? what when i does that seem suspicious to me. i'm looking a you and watching you get behind the officer. you're moving in a provacative way, without hearing anything it looks to me like you're trying to get in the way of the cop doing his job. he comes out. from his perspective he doesn't know if you have a gun or knife or what you're doing behind his back does he? >> no, sir. but as you can see we are on an incline. my friends accidently bumps me twice which makes me look like i'm charging to the officer. as you can see i slip and back up. >> i don't see anybody bumping you as you're doing what looks like a provocative dance there. >> if you look at the video in an objective manner you will clearly see they're on an incline. the person behind him bumps him not once but twice. and the dance that you're referring to -- >> we've slowed down. >> slow is down, please, ya a. >> there it is. >> you will see the individual bump him twice. he stumbled -- >> that doesn't answer the question. why are you going up almost right in this cop's grill? you're in his face. you're like two feet away. >> he is not right in his face. if you look at the video, mr. hannity, if you look at the video, what you'll see he's on an incline. accidently bumped in the officer's direction. he immediately backed up. >> you're making a big deal -- where does the cop turn towards him -- >> an experienced officer, correct the officer turns towards him looks at him. >> are you going to speak for your client or is your client able to speak? >> that's my job. >> you're not potted plant. i got it great line. >> yes, sir. >> that doesn't seem like too big a hill here. i'm looking at this video objectively. here is a cop doing his job. it seems, adrian like you're getting pretty close into his grill, into his work zone. you're being provocative while he's doing your job. >> i wasn't being provacative. i had no intention of charging the officer. i disagree with what he did. i honestly don't think he should have drew his weapon because i backed up immediately, not when he looked at me. but as soon as i got down there. >> let me ask you to try and be a police officer. all right. you're in the middle of an arrest. it's obviously a very volatile situation that's evolved. you're the cop -- >> it's a volatile situation -- >> this is for adrian. >> i'm sorry. >> it's a volatile situation. and he's doing his job. out of the corner of the eye he sees two guys maybe two feet away from him behind him from his -- can you not see from his perspective that that is a dangerous position for him to be in adrian? >> okay sir i do see that. but can you answer this in what point of the videos was i ever behind the officer. you -- >> you are outside of his line of sight. you're three quarters of the way behind him. >> sir, if you look at the video from the -- >> that cop doesn't know if you're there to hurt him or not. that cop doesn't know. >> i agree with that point. everyone there was pleading with the officer not to hurt the little girl. they're pleading with the little girl to calm down so that he won't break her neck. and at that point, when he is in contact with the little girl. he's trying to force her face on the ground. his commands are heard get your face in the ground. that's not lawful for the officer to do. he backs up. when he backs up i agree with you that when mr. martin comes up that hill toward him, he had every right to protect his weapon. a trained officer with his experience should have -- okay -- >> here is what you're missing, you're missing a point. >> there are three other officers that's are out there. if they believe that mr. martin was trying to harm that officer they would drawn their weapon. based on othef the totalities of the circumstances -- >> counselor, i'm limited on my time here. those officers had a much different perspective because, again your client is out of his line of vision is behind him within two feet. he has to protect his weapon. you're right. my only question -- are you planning to sue the police department over this now? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. what we want to make sure is that this officer is held accountable frl accountable for his actions. a mere resignation is not sufficient. >> what do you want. >> absolutely. >> you want the officer in jail? >> that's up to the citizens. what he's guilty of is official oppression. he clearly uses daesh. >> official oppression? >> i'm a former prosecutor. if you're in the state of texas, we have -- >> i have some friendly advice. >> let me explain to you -- >> i don't have the time for that. but i have to go but i have -- i have advice for adrian. if you see an officer, in the pros process of doing his job you cannot come in to him at an angle with where he can't see you. if you were unhappy, you had other alternatives. you could have gone to the other officers. you have to understand his mindset. he doesn't know if you have a weapon, you're in his grill. that's a dangerous position to put yourself in i think there's a lesson to be learned for a lot of people. >> he never intentionally approached the officer. >> he was within two feet of them sir. i can look at the video. >> he never intentionally approached the officer. he stumbled and backed back. >> thank you both for being with us. >> that's what he's going to be charged with. >> i don't think he's going to be charged. here now with more reaction we have former lapd detective mark fuhrman and bo dietl. good tuesday you botho see you both. >> i think you're a cop by blood or something. >> i'm irish. >> what you said was the truth. the reason for a cop bringing his gun out of his holster is he's in fear of something. we don't know what these punks in back of them are going to do. he felt as though he was losing control of the situation. those two other cops showed up. they were the calvary but he didn't see them. he was in the midst being surrounded. they didn't into anything wrong by removing his gun. he took it out because he feared. >> he kept it down. >> i don't know what that guy said about maybe the guy said i'll pop a cap at you. you do what you got to do because you fear for your life. that cop is justified in removing his weapon if he fears for his life. >> what do you think, mark fuhrman? >> sean you know the whole situation, i mean it seems kind of bizarre that we're talking about an unruly pool party. that's really the crux of the whole thing. the situation -- the way i see this this officer from all my information, he escalated his own tactical problem by rushing in by himself instead of waiting for another unit. there was no shooting in progress or fight in progress. there were kids that were unruly at a pool party and they wouldn't leave. that's it. you wait for three or four officers and you walk calmly in and say party's over time to go. >> let me give you details. there was a resident quoted as saying that he watched the whole thing. he was the person that called the cops. he said the 30 seconds or the seven minutes that you see on camera do not capture the amount of violence that was actually taking place in this incident. >> mark i saw video. i saw video prior to this. there was fights on the ground. they were punching each other in the face. there was a lot of fights going on. when this cop arrives at the scene there is turmoil going on. he is jacked up. it's difficult with these cell phone cameras they got to take a portion of this and now all of a sudden the world sees this the cops is racist the cop is this or that. what was in the cop's mind when he pulled the gun? did he fear the guys in back could have hurt him? >> we have to back up. we have to forget the gun right now. we have to back up. if everything you say it true there is kids fighting there is struggles and, you know wrestling going on it's even more reason for the officer to wait for more officers before he goes in. so they can have a command presence and maintain somebody's cover of their back. >> mark i'm not sure that didn't happen. if you look how quickly the two officers come in. it appears they went in together and got separated. i want you to comment specifically on these two kids that got pretty close in his grill there behind him. to me a cop is going to expect the worst in that moment isn't he? >> well you can say in this situation yes but you have to take everything in the total context. look at where you are and what you're dealing with. look at the kids you're dealing with. look at your surroundings look at the time of day. it's daylight. you're wrestling on the ground with a 14-year-old girl. and you've got kids in bathing suits running around in t shirts. you're not in the hood. you're not in a gang area. you're not in that level. let me finish -- no bo bo let me finish this. >> you're making -- you're making a judgment with this cop. you can see the cop push the other cop because he was in such a turmoil. >> one at a time. mark go ahead. >> when he escalated the force to a firearm, he eliminated pepper spray, he eliminated a taser. he eliminated a baton. and he immediately went to an item that was deadly force. what was he going to do if those two kids wanted to -- >> mark i've been in situations where i pulled may gun out when i did all those stops at my side. >> so have i. >> when you pull out a gun sometimes it stops the turmoil, mark and it stops people from doing and escalating -- >> hang on -- >> i have one question. if you look where the position of these two young men are, mark they are within two feet of his gun. that -- doesn't he have to protect his weapon too? >> sean protecting your weapon and trying to fight one or two individuals with one hand because you've got your gun unholstered in the other hand is a tactical no no. you escalate the force, one level above what you're dealing with. he didn't do that. he went three, four times what he had to do. you know what -- >> again, mark outside of this studio i had three guys come up to me around thanksgiving and they were going to rob me. you know what unescalated that robbery? my putting my hand on my gun and saying i am going to put a cap somewhere. >> we're not talking about a robbery, bo. >> it could have turned out to be a robbery. >> i got to run, guys thank you. >> sean you know what the problem is here? the media coverage on this pool party cost a man his career. >> right. >> which it shouldn't have been. >> thank you both. appreciate it. m m. coming up more tonight on "hannity" "hannity." "hannity." the pastor who called out al sharpton to his face and called him a pimp is going to be here to react to what appears to be some professional protesters to despd descending or mckinney texas. an e-mail reveals that marilyn mosby ordered cops to crack down on the area where freddie gray was shot. that and much more as we continue. are you still getting heartburn flare-ups? time for a new routine.4hr. the latest choice for frequent heartburn. get complete protection. nexium level protection. back to "hannity," last night on this program a heated debate took place over whether professional protoesters are traveling around the country. for example, watch this. >> you're a sucker that's going around this country starting problems not caring about what happens after the fact. because it's giving you a bit of notoriety. admit it you're a race pimp. >> have you been to the victims of all the victims of sandy hook or katrina? >> i'm not a professional running around the country earning money to get this nonsense. i'm not running around the country. >> kvyou should start yelling. i've answered the question many times. i'll say it again to you. >> you're getting paid. >> police have killed people where the -- >> you're getting paid. >> joining me criminal defense attorney as well as pastor jarvis who recently confronted the biggest race agitator in the country, reverend al sharpton and called him a pimp to his face. wow. >> yes i did. >> why? >> well you know having a rally in hartford under the os auspices they were trying to bring attention to the crime rate and poverty. and after this march, there was a gathering in shiloh baptist church. and reserve al sharpton and some other pastors began to pressure and demand money from the congregants. i thought that was absolutely wrong. and so i had to call it for what it is. >> yeah. i thought that's pretty interesting. what are your thoughts on -- this guy that was on the program last night said to me he went to ferguson baltimore, florida and mckinney texas. he doesn't have a job. and he's going around the country, we have professional agitators going into communities and trying to create turmoil. >> i don't think -- it's almost like calling it snipe hunting, hannity, you know -- >> snipe hunting? >> have you ever heard of snipe hunting? >> no. >> it's an imaginary thing people make up about the professional protester. >> he was on last night. he was ipn ferguson baltimore, mckinney and trayvon -- >> and they go to college footballs games all over the country -- >> what's your reaction to him calling sharpton a pimp? >> i don't agree. i don't know what influenced that i want there. if a pastor asks for money when they're traveling -- >> that's what you were calling sharpton? >> he is. >> wait let's take a look at the pastor that has been in the when you say 90 white house 90 times. does he have the character to be there? you decide. >> you ain't nothing. you a punk [ bleep ] come on and do something. it's the best chicken fried in the universe. he was in the cave when we had built empires. we learned to admire them but they knew to admire us. we built pyramids. donald trump ever knew what architecture was. [ bleep ] [ bleep ] if you're angry, throw your arms up. if you want justice, throw your arms up. if you want answers throw your arms up. because that's the sign michael was using. running around picking up trying to act like he had a gang sign. he had a surrender sign. that's the sign you got to deal with. don't make up no signs. deal with the last sign he shown. we want answers why that sign was not respected. >> that guy belong in the white house? >> pastor jarvis said he wanted -- >> i want to respond to this. >> you want to duck the question. >> i want to respond. we are all a work in progress. jesus said he would that none would perish. we cannot say that he has not grown from his earlier days till now. >> he was saying hands up down shoot. the eric holder justice department concluded that never happened. it never happened. it was a big lie that was perpetrated. and advanced by him. >> and sharpton has not mentioned the hands up don't shoot after the justice department came out with -- >> he did rush to judgment beforehand and whipping up people's minds into a frenzy. >> that is what the evidence showed at the time. >> that was the guy who was robbing the store with michael brown. >> the fact of the matter is we're all brother in the christ. at the end of the day, just like with david and solaul. the bible says touch not mine anointed. at the end of our day we have to pray for him. me calling a pimp was to correct him. hopefully he received that correction. it's more than just al sharpton. we have a systemic problem. >> i see you point. all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. using the n word for a black mayor in new york. using the f word a derisive term towards gays and lesbian. i can go through the list of times, does that man belong in the white house or is that history gone on way too long? >> all i can answer -- >> he's on tape with a deal involving cocaine, you ever see that? >> no, i haven't. >> you need to see that. you ever see that tape? >> i never seen that tape. >> you need to watch "hannity" every night. >> we're all a work in progress. what you're talking about clips from at least ten years ago. i don't think reverend sharpton is just symbolic of a system that's rife with pimps. look at the state of the church in the intercity communities and the suburbs. we have churches all over the place, look at the state of our country. there's a divide between us in the body of christ that needs to stop. there's a divide on racial and economic lines. we have to look past our differences the same way as christ says i cast your sins into the sea of forgetfulness. >> a president that talks about ferguson and cambridge and florida and trayvon martin and speaks out about freddie gray but doesn't talk about black on black crime and how many young children of god are being killed. >> we don't talk about white on white crime. >> we should. but it doesn't advance a narrative. >> president obama has talked about black on black crime. michelle obama -- >> you never hear about it. >> now you're saying barely. >> do you know the name of -- give me the name of one kid in chicago -- >> you said never now you said barely. >> give me the name of one kid that's been shot and killed in chicago? >> you -- why don't you answer my question? >> i can't remember a single incident. >> you get two people -- >> one kid that runs up into a school and kills 32 people. >> white on white crime, black on black crime. let's accuse everything of being a racist and look at it as an issue that needs to be addressed. >> the president shouldn't rush to judgment on a high profile race incident. he's a three time loser. michael brown, in ferguson -- >> totally disagree with that. >> rush to judgment. >> you mentioned -- constitutional -- >> you're thinking george zimmerman was right? >> yes. >> you're defending him? >> maybe you don't believe in a person being innocent until proven guilty. >> i do. i do. >> do you think that -- >> let me finish. >> do you think that racism has totally been eradicated in this country? >> absolutely not. there was an eyewitness in the trayvon martin case that saw trayvon martin on top of george zimmerman grounding and pounding. >> you saw -- >> are you going to let me finish? grounding and pounding his head into cement and george zimmerman screaming for his life. that resulted in the verdict. i trust the jury system. i believe on those circumstances, he believed his life was in jeopardy and facts and evidence are different than rushing to judgment like our constitutional president does. >> i agree with you. that notwithstanding you have to admit to the fact that the judicial system has its own racist proponents. african-americans only comprise 15% of the population. of that 15% a small portion are african-american males. >> i will concede your point -- you could use the crack cocaine powder cocaine argument. same form different form. different -- you have different communities, different drugs. and it the same thing. i think there's inquality in the justice system. >> that needs to be corrected. i got to go. disturbing new report about the baltimore prosecutor marilyn mosby. she told the police to ramp up the paroles in the same area freddie gray was arrested weeks before his death. we'll check in with geraldo rivera. the rnc chairman is here to explain how the gop plans to take on hillary clinton with her big speech expected this weekend. i can hardly wait. must see viewing. do you want to know how hard it can be to breathe with copd? it can feel like this. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my airways for a full 24 hours. spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva respimat does not replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva respimat. discuss all medicines you take even eye drops. if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain or problems passing urine stop taking spiriva respimat and call your doctor right away. side effects include sore throat cough, dry mouth and sinus infection. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. to learn about spiriva respimat slow-moving mist ask your doctor or visit spirivarespimat.com so this beauty can be yours with a down payment and 10% financing. oh larry, lawrence. thanks to the tools and help at experian.com i know i have a 798 fico score. ♪ oh. that's the sound of my interest rate going down. according to this score alert, my fico score just went up to 816. 816. 816! 816! fico scores are used in 90% of credit decisions. so get your credit swagger on. go to experian.com become a member of experian credit tracker, and take charge of your score. to the people oft baltimore and the demonstrators across america, i heard you call for no justice, no peace. your peace is sincerely needed as i work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man. to those that are angry, hurt or have their own experiences of injustice at the hands of police officers i urge you to channel the energy peacefully as we prosecute this case. i have heard your calls for no justice, no peace. however your peace is sincerely needed as i work to deliver justice on behalf of freddie gray. >> that was marilyn mosby promising to bring justice in the freddie gray case. tonight a newly uncovered e-mail reveals that mosby ordered the cops to ramp up patrols in the exact area where gray was arrested. the e-mail said states' attorney mosby asked me to look into the community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of north avenue. the e-mail was forwarded to several police officers who were instructed to start daily sweeps. with reaction baltimore's former state attorney and fox news senior correspondent geraldo rivera. i have said from the beginning she needs to recuse herself. thoughts? >> she asked for justice, she asked for peace. she got neither. instead of peace, she bought some time. the riots did end credit her with a political success. but in terms of justice, there's no justice here. this clearly is a prosecutor who was acting as a politician she was the person who urged the cops to go to this area. she was the person who -- one of the officers receiving the memo is lieutenant brian rice, he's one of the accused. here he gets a memo, be aggressive crack down on crime -- >> he's a known drug dealer. >> he's accused of committing a crime trying to follow her orders. i think it's beizarre i think there will be change of venue and these officers will be acquitted. >> your reaction? >> when she first filed her charges, i had two major criticisms one was how fast she did it. she consistent possibly have had time to have all the evidence in front of her to make the decision. not a political decision. but the right decision for justice purposes. and the other was the arrests of the arresting officers who were not implemented in the death of freddie gray. she was charging them simply because they arrested him. here claim was they arrested him without probable cause. that claim is falling apart. it fell apart from the very beginning. if she sends an e-mail -- i say if we don't have confirmation. the defense attorney brought this to the judge's attention. if her office asked them to crack down in this area she is saying to the police officers go forth. i want you to be aggressive. i want you to use all tools at your disposal to cut down on the drug trafficking on this corner which by the way is a corner in her husband's district. i think her conflict of interest began there. if she is talking to the police department about cracking down on drugs at a corner in her husband's district which was an unusual thing for her to do outside of a joint investigation, there is a conflict of interest. if you're saying to the police department i want you to be aggressive that's what they're going to do.eads to these kinds of incidents. she's claiming that by running after freddie gray who was running from them and grabbing him and then frisking him that that was a criminal act, it was set in motion by her own behavior. >> wow, that's a powerful strong case you made. geraldo, last question. why won't she release the autopsy report? >> she has asked for a gag order. she had been granted the motion we never would know about the e-mail. why won't she release the autopsy? you know what the autopsy will reveal. it will reveal thee was deeply intoxicated, using whatever you know was in his system. i don't know i don't want to prejudge him. he was a known narcotics user in this hot zone where they directed the cops to use their aggressive tactics. >> ms. mosby wants it both ways. she wants to say go after the drug dealers if you make a mistake and arrest them i'll charge you criminally. she says in the press conference -- the autopsy report said it was a homicide but you can't see it. powerful case by both of you. up next tonight on "hannity." >> clinton poll numbers heading in the wrong decision. >> everything that she's about is a turn off. >> hillary set to make her first big speech this weekend. the rnc is getting prepared. the chairman brings the new ad. seinfeld tells why comics are afraid to tell jokes straight ahead. when a moment spontaneously turns romantic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com new york state is reinventing how we do business by leading the way on tax cuts. we cut the rates on personal income taxes. we enacted the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. we eliminated the income tax on manufacturers altogether. with startup-ny, qualified businesses that start, expand or relocate to new york state pay no taxes for 10 years. all to grow our economy and create jobs. see how new york can give your business the opportunity to grow at ny.gov/business you used to sleep like a champ. then boom... what happened? stress, fun, bad habits kids, now what? let's build a new, smarter bed using the dualair chambers to sense your movement, heartbeat, breathing. introducing the sleep number bed with sleepiqtm technology. it tracks your sleep and tells you how to adjust for a good, better and an awesome night. the difference? try adjusting up or down. you'll know cuz sleep iq™ tells you. only at a sleep number store where you'll find the best buy rated mattress with sleepiq technology. know better sleep with sleep number. ugh! heartburn! no one burns on my watch! try alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmm...amazing. i have heartburn. alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. welcome back to "hannity." hillary clinton is slated to give her first big speech in new york city. how will republicans respond? it may look like this new rnc ad. >> hillary clinton's polling numbers heading in the wrong direction. >> everything she's about is a turn off. >> an avalanche of bad stories. >> trying to position herself as the champion of every day americans. >> hasn't driven herself in her own vehicle in 20 years. >> it's a disconnect with normal people. >> the end of the line. >> she speaks. >> they act like she's allergic to real people. >> here to explain more is the rnc chairman. i'm only guessing it seems like you're touching the surface. i didn't hear about a woman that said she's two steps away from being a hoarder except when it comes to her e-mail account which she erases. i would expect more coming. >> it's the tip of the iceberg. think about what's going on here. if you remember you and i talked about when hillary launched her campaign. and it was this brilliant idea of getting in a van and it was going to be quiet and average. and everything that she's not. now they're doing round two. i don't remember a presidential campaign having a second rollout. this is like a redo. happening on saturday. so now she's going to do this on roosevelt island in new york. we'll be there like we should be and we'll hand out a few surprises and have a lot of folks over there as well. >> all this money, and then she -- obviously, countries like saudi arabia bought her silence because she's never criticized their abysmal women's right records or gay and lesbian right's record. sweden was able to continue their business with iran while the rest of the world was in fact putting up sanctions against them. the clinton foundation bought $26 million there. how big an issue do you think that will be with voters? >> well it's going to be a huge issue, sean. because here's the thing, presidential elections come down to obviously the issues but it also comes down to the question of you know which one of these candidates care more about you? who do you want to have a beer with? who do you like? who do you relate to? hillary clinton is unrelatable. number one, you see poll after poll people are finding her to be untrustworthy by 60%. number two, she doesn't live a life that's remotely close to any actual average family that is out there in ohio that's going to be voting. >> she hasn't driven a car in 20 years. good grief. let me put -- go ahead. finish your thought. >> i was just going to say that her research team puts out a hit piece on marco rubio for getting a couple speeding tickets when in reality she hasn't driven a car. she comes up on the short end of that deal. >> i have a picture that looks like the one, they call it a luxury speed boat in the "new york times." it's a bitty fishing boat like a dinghy. congress, they they didn't put in a picture of the yacht of john kerry, or that the clintons made $100 million in the last couple of years. is this what every republican is going to have to deal with? they have a little dinghy versus extrange ex extravagance? >> it's going to be up to us and your listeners and us having a rnc that has its act together and is competent and can get the messages out on the streets. not just through television advertising. having ten people every ten blocks reminding people across the country who hillary and bill clinton really are. it will take a lot of work. we'll be there to make sure that happens. al >> chairman, good to see you. you don't want to miss it here on hannity. >> you now need to apologize. there's a creepy pc thing out there that really bothers me. >> comedian jerry seinfeld takes on the pc place. up next we'll have reaction. can you even tell a joke in this day and age? straight ahead. ♪ (piano music) ♪ fresher dentures, for the best first impression. love loud, live loud polident. ♪ ♪ fresher dentures... ...for those breathless moments. hug loud, live loud, polident. ♪ ♪ ♪ it's a calling. a love affair. a quest. the next horizon. everyone loves the chase. i like my seafood like i like my vacations: tropical. and during red lobster's island escape, three new tropical dishes take me straight to the islands. so i'm diving fork-first into the lobster and shrimp in paradise, with panko-crusted lobster tail and jumbo shrimp in captain morgan barbecue glaze. or the ultimate island seafood feast, with tender crab wood-grilled lobster and two island-inspired flavors of jumbo shrimp. because a summer without tropical flavors might as well be winter. this escape is too good to miss so...don't. ♪ every auto insurance policy has a number. but not every insurance company understands the life behind it. ♪ those who have served our nation have earned the very best service in return. ♪ usaa. we know what it means to serve. get an auto insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life. unbelievable! toenail fungus? seriously? smash it with jublia! jublia is a prescription medicine proven to treat toenail fungus. use jublia as instructed by your doctor. look at the footwork! most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness, itching, swelling burning or stinging, blisters, and pain. smash it! make the call and ask your doctor if jublia is right for you. new larger size now available. relook. rethink. reimagine. because right here, right now it's time to take a closer look at botox® cosmetic, the only fda approved treatment for the temporary improvement of both moderate to severe frown lines and crow's feet. see what real results can really look like. so talk to your doctor about botox® cosmetic. and make it part of what you do for you. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threathening condition. do not take botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions injection site pain, eyelid drooping and swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history muscle or nerve conditions and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. look me... in the eyes... and see what's possible... botox® cosmetic. it's time to take a closer look. welcome back to "hannity" so last night jerry seinfeld lashed out on how pc the country has become. >> you can feel like an opinion. and they thought what are you talking about gay? what are you doing? what do you mean? you know? and i thought are you kidding me? i can imagine a time where people would say that is offensive to suggest a gay person moves their hands in a flourishing motion and you need to apologize it's a creepy pc thing out there that bothers me. >> the brand new host of "red eye". thank you for offering me the job, sean. >> yes. i had everything to do with it. >> they never invited me on the show once. >> i'll invite you right now. >> it used to be you can tell a funny ethnic joke. you can make fun of people. we're now like everyone is scared to death to say something that might offend someone. do you know what? it's not funny anymore. i like it when it's funny. if people are offended their words get over it. >> you want to tell me an ethnic joke go. i want to hear one. give me the most-offensive one. >> what is an irish seven-course feel? >> what? >> a six-pack and a potato. >> i can say that because i'm irish. >> >> you hung out with imus too long. >> i just -- >> if you are -- i can fun of myself. that is it. >> is that the rules now? only make fun of ourselves? >> you can barely do that at this point. the people in this country preaching tolerance the loudest are instead breeding intolerance. they stirred up a band of bile-spewing lunatics. >> they made everything boring. your show is more about comedy. >> the lucky thing is it's on at 3:00 in the morning. the only people watching are not going to be offended it's the ivy league crowd. >> do you put women on the light chair? >> we never use that term. >> it's a light chair. it's not a butt-crack chair. >> do you know who i miss the most? god rest her, joan rivers from the day she died she was unapologetic, harsh and hilarious you know melissa put me in the guest room and women kidnapped in cleveland had more room. people were outraged and she said it's a joke i'm not apologizing for it. >> saying i was only kidding doesn't work anymore we have people that will take three hours hoping to get me fired. >> oh yes. >> red eye, too. >> people in new mexico in their basement. you need to get a life. all right? >> you need to go buy richard pryor album. watch foster brooks on you tube. you can't make fun of people who drink anymore. that is some of the funniest stuff. >> it's going to offend people that are alcoholics. >> thank you. >> when we come back we need your help because it's our question of the day. next. put your hand over your heart. is it beating? good! then my nutrition heart health mix is for you. it's a wholesome blend of peanuts, pecans and other delicious nuts specially mixed for people with hearts. planters. nutrition starts with nut. (vo) if you have type 2 diabetes you may know what it's like to deal with high... and low blood sugar. januvia (sitagliptin) is a once-daily pill that, along with diet and exercise helps lower blood sugar. januvia works when your blood sugar is high and works less when your blood sugar is low, because it works by enhancing your body's own ability to lower blood sugar. plus januvia, by itself, is not likely to cause weight gain or low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). januvia should not be used in patients with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. tell your doctor if you have a history of pancreatitis. serious side effects can happen, including pancreatitis which may be severe and lead to death. stop taking januvia and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area which may be pancreatitis. tell your doctor right away and stop taking januvia if you have an allergic reaction that causes swelling of the face, lips tongue, or throat, or affects your breathing or causes rash or hives. kidney problems sometimes requiring dialysis have been reported. using januvia and a sulfonylurea or insulin together may cause low blood sugar. to reduce the risk, your doctor may prescribe a lower dose of the sulfonylurea or insulin. your doctor may perform blood tests before and during treatment to check your kidneys. if you have kidney problems a lower dose may be prescribed. side effects may include upper respiratory tract infection, stuffy or runny nose and sore throat, and headache. for help lowering your blood sugar talk to your doctor about januvia today. kelley blue book... it's the trusted resource. and now, kbb.com has a whole new way to help you decide on your next new car by showing you what really matters. use 5-year cost to own to compare the long term cost of maintenance insurance and gas. read reviews. woman: gas milage is awesome. from actual owners and kelley blue book experts. and get the full picture on what it's like to own the cars you're considering kbb.com [ male announcer ] how do you make cancer a thing of the past? well...you use the past. huntsman cancer institute has combined 300 years of family histories with health records to discover inherited genes for melanoma, breast colon and ovarian cancers. so we can predict and treat cancer. and sometimes even prevent it from happening in the first place. to learn more or support the cause go to huntsmancancer.org. you do all this research on the perfect car. gas mileage , horse power... torque ratios. three spreadsheets later you finally bring home the one. then smash it into a tree. your insurance company's all too happy to raise your rates. maybe you should've done a little more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ ♪ (vo) you can pass down a subaru forester. (dad) she's all yours. (vo) but you get to keep the memories. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. welcome back to hannity. did the kinney police department throw the officer under the bus? we hope you'll set your dvr so you nef miss an issue because we'll miss you. thanks for joining us we'll see you back here tomorrow night. me what you think about it also tweet me using @greta. >> the o'reilly factor is on tonight: >> were there plans for how to react to the fall of mosul to isis? >> well, no, they are not. >> after being embarrassed in the media the obama administration now sending 450 troops to iraq trying to blunt isis. more fog. colonel peters will analyze. >> to come and try to redefine what god has ordained would be a great mistake. >> a group of powerful clerics telling the supreme court if it legalizes gay marriage it will violate freedom of religion. we will take a hard look at that assertion.

Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Happening Now 20150608

and i don't think he is have pulled a gun on a 15-year-old kid. >> what would be the fallout. >> they are interviewing the officers. barely escaping with their lives after becoming the bulldozer rampage. >> how do you stop the guy at the controls? it is all "happening now". >> the drive net widens for two convicted killers. there is growing concern over how they escaped. >> i am patty ann brown in for jennalily. the one on the left serving a life sentence for killing a sheriff's deputy and the one on the right doing 25 years to life. they cut through steel walls and a brick wall. they cut their way in and out of a steam pipe before slicing through eight manhole cover or a chain that held the manhole cover. it is likely they got inside help. we'll talk about it with bill daly. >> the governor said it is like something out of the movies. it is elaborate prison escape. >> what we have seen from alkatraz. and it wouldn't be humorous if these people are not scary. they are hardened criminals and murderers and from my take they had inside and outside help to help them get away. >> sweat has broken out of prison. he tortured his body and snapped his neck and cut up his body. 18 years this guy has been doing time. and he is a scary and dangerous individual. and deputies who caught and cornered him first time around said he is a scary man. >> this manhunt is going from canada and prison is close to the u.s. border and all the way down to the southern states all the way to mexico. and there is a lot of questions of how they cut through the wall and pipes? how did that get the tools? and what happens next. they are out there. and left with the shirts on their back. is somebody gives money or proceeds? >> given the way they got out and all of the preplanning to go into this. one would think they had a ride or pick up once they got out of the manhole cover. >> it would certainly suggest that they had other things in process waiting for them once they get out. and raises questions as to who that is. authorities are trying to find out who they are, they will look closely at the people with connections and people who sent them thing ands family members and friends who they had contact with or past association with. a lot of people run in the same packs and it may be the same people they have known for years. >> they are taking a look at a female prison employee who may have provided help but not a security guard. how does an inmate get in constant contact enough that they can form a bond or relationship with a nonprison guard? >> yes, it sounds a bit abstract, but unfortunately in prison settings there is subcultures that exist. someone can be maintenance or daily contact with the prisoners. we don't know if they were in the cells or fro time and worked in the prison and had contact with someone, but certainly getting access to power tools and cutting through the wall and pipe requires a contractor or someone else on the inside at least turning a blind eye. >> a partnerly the walls of the cell were steel. they cut underneath the panel under the bunks and made it in the crawlspace and dropped down six stories and broke through a wall and cut in a 24 inch steam poip and cut out a chain that was covering the manhole cover. and that is professionally done. and somebody in the crawlspace and they are there to do the work for them. >> what i would say, john looking at the complexity of this. and they wouldn't. they would get access to look at the information where they knew a, the steam pipe didn't have steam in it otherwise they would be parboiled, and they were able to make their way through the inside of the walls of the prison and get out. someone gave them information about the way it is configured and get out and these power tools, big question. more so john what are they doing now? great later on to find out who helped them and have information. they turned a blind eyed or gave them information. but who are they working with outside. >> hundred thousand reward from the state to lead to their recanture; bill thank you. >> jon, a now controversy on hillary clinton. she was giving instead of receiving donations. they shelled out hundred thousand to a new york times group the same year the paper endorsed her in 2008. what is the full out so far over the clinton foundation? >> this coming from a conservative washington free beacon. the hundred thousand back in 2008 why is that significant? it came from a family foundation that is different than the bill hillary and chelsea foundation we have heard about so far. it is about her personal giving. the money went to a new york types charity that is overseen by new york times executive. significant because the times endorsed hillary clinton over barak obama and john edwards. you talk about robert rice saying he thinks that both clintons have to be more transparent about the foundation giving. >> she is running a general election campaign already. and i do think that the issue of disclosure and full disclosure is a co vulnerability. and her husband as well. put everything out. more disclosure than any other candidate. >> reporter: he went on to say that bill clinton should end the practice of paid speeches. and democrats pushing back by noting that former president bush is giving peaches and his brother jeb bush is looking sourcely about getting in the presidential race. >> and carle foriana put out all of the information about her finances. >> reporter: when you compare the two it is interesting. carle foriana has a net worth of $59 million. but hillary clinton it is a wide range. she had a financial disclosure form with the financial commission. but well is a lot of details to beout. carle foriana, income and 30 million for hillary clinton. and federal tax return relief. carle foriana has did that and hillary clinton has not. and another interesting note when hillary clinton disclosed some of her finances to the federal commission recently what was not mentioned, we learned later that bill clinton set up a corporation in delaware to take consulting fees. >> edhenary thanks. >> and isis forces and iraqi forces capturing parts of the iraqi city. in northern baghdad, the city fell to it isis a year ago. national security correspondent jennifer griffith live with the latest. joishgs pentagon officials tell us it is too early to celebrate. iraqi forces have not taken all of the refinery. the forces broke through the isis siege this weekend. the first good news since the fall of ramadi last month. the air coalition only cared out three air strikes this weekend. u.s. officials tell me some parts of the city of baji was taken back with help of iowa rannian militia. they pushed some isis fighters away from government buildings. he said isis occupies portions of the tea and nearby refinery and the official didn't know what percentage of the town and refinery are under isis control. they have a foot hold in bochlth president obama talked about about isis this month. >> when a final plan is presented to me by the pentagon i will share it with the american people. we don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the parts of the iraqis as well. >> reporter: a u.s. official clarified the president's remarks and said president obama is speaking about how to accelerate and equip the iraqi forces. so far 8920 troops have been trained by american forces. the pentagon would not say if they are fighting in ba ji right now. >> thank you, jennifer. so the iraqi forces take one step forward, woe talk to a former intelligence officer who said it doesn't change the strategy. that's ahead on "happening now". >> and another closed door for an american journalist on trial for espionage in iran. we'll talk to his brother about what is done to bring him home. and let us hear from you. what do you think about hillary clinton's scandals. attention. did you or anyone in your household work around asbestos-containing gaskets and packing? the garlock bankruptcy may affect your rights even if you do not presently have an asbestos-related disease. garlock's products were used in industrial and maritime settings, where steam, hot liquid or acid moved in pipes. certain personal injury claims must be filed by october 6, 2015. you may have a right to vote on garlock's plan to reorganize and pay claims. call 844-garlock or go to garlocknotice.com hi, my name is cliff. i'm tom. my name is eric. and i help make beneful. i help make beneful. i help make beneful. after working here, there's no other food i'd feed my pets. each ingredient is tested by our own quality insurance people. i see all the quality data everything that i need to know that it's good for my dog. there's a standard. and then there's a purina standard. i make it and i feed my dog beneful. i feel proud because i know that i helped make that bag of dog food sitting on that shelf. out of 42 vehicles based on 6 different criteria, why did a panel of 11 automotive experts name the volkswagen golf motor trend's 2015 car of the year? we'll give you four good reasons. the volkswagen golf. starting at $19,295, there's an award-winning golf for everyone. >> right now, brand new developments from a washington post reporter on espionage charges in iran. and while details remain vague, we learned that rezaian defended himself in english. his brother a li joins us now. ali, i know it is difficult times for your family. and as you continue to fight the charges, espi anog. where are they accusing him of espionage? >> they put out some information that he had contact with folks in the journalistic community and gaerthed information about the foreign policys of iran but really nothing he did outside of the bounds of typical journalist and he never had access to secret information. there is no basis for the charges. >> so the iran wran government issousing him as a pawn in a scheme? >> you know i couldn't tell you exactly what is going o. jason didn't have going to do with the u.s. government and it is unbelievable to think that they could get an advantage by holding him. >> i know you have spoken personally with the president about his capture and imprisonment, what did president obama say? >> he reiterated that the administration is following it closely and doing everything they can. and bring it up every time they meet with iranian officials during the talks. and that it was very important to him to make sure jason and the others were brought him soon as possible. >> obviously very important to iran to get a nuclear agreement. do you think that his imprisonment is going to figure bo whatever deal the administration cuts with iran? >> it is hard to believe it that there is something that bring its to together. i don't think there is a quid pro quo or anything like that. but i can't believe the negotiations and what is going on now, haven't tremendously complicated the situation. >> it is a secret process and they don't say anything about the charges or let people in to watch the court proceedings and the mystery that surrounds the case must be maddening to you and your family. >> my mother was there and she's been in iran for a month and been able to see him twice and not in the context of the trial. they will not let my sister-in-law and mother in to support him. and as i said there is no information or secret information to be presented that would be be logical. >> even the u.n. said there are no grounds for him to be held. those are the kinds of people our country proposes to deal w. ali, our best to you and jason. >> thank you very much. >> and two months before the iowa trau poll and the state that holds the first straw poll of the nation. we learn two presidential hopefuls plan to skip altogether. >> and why president obama said the strategy to defeat the terrorist is a work in progress. good! then my nutrition heart health mix is for you. it's a wholesome blend of peanuts, pecans and other delicious nuts specially mixed for people with hearts. planters. nutrition starts with nut. why am i so awake? did you know your brain has a wake system... and a sleep system? science suggests when you have insomnia, the neurotransmitters in your wake system may be too strong, which may be preventing you from getting the sleep you need. talk to your doctor about ways to manage your insomnia. get the complete balanced nutrition of ensure. with nine grams of protein... and 26 vitamins and minerals. and now with... ...twice as much vitamin d ...which up to 90% of people don't get enough of. the sunshine vitamin! ensure. take life in. >> frightening moments in new york state. a united airline jet skid off the runway. it was a slick runway in buffalo. the plane landed throw hundred feet and skidded in a grass safety area. no injuries were reported. ntwo months before approximate the iowa state straw pollment joanie ernest is saying what she would like to see in a candidate who wins the poll. >> we need to have someone who will express conservative views and of course and i am looking for somebody that is reaganesque and reach all aspects of our voting population here in america. >> and talking about that is juan williams fox political analyst. and molly, editor and one, you heard the definition of reaganesque and conservative and appeal to many aspects of the voting population. does anyone fit that bill? >> it is interesting. i covered ronald reagan. and i think of tremend out cha ris maand good locks and charm and among the republican nom nos, two stand out. senators paul and rubio. but you think of people with background of strong conservative and the person in the tape that we are seeing scott walker governor of wisconsin and former governor of florida jeb bush. and in turns that senator is talking about jeb bush scott walker, marco rubio and rand paul. nmolly, does anybody in the republican field strike you. >> i can so why she had trouble picking a particular candidate. and unlike previous campaigns the entire field has reaganesque. rubio and farriona and rand paul who are roaching out with percentages that we are not seeing since reagan. and jeb bush and particularly rick perry. and if you take reagan's noted ability to connect with common man. scott walker. negotiating with unions and reaching out to normal people. the entire people is reaganesque and nice to be republican right now contrast with the democratic fold. >> we can't take one from another and vote for the whole group it is going to be 1, 1 way or the other. jeb bush and huckabee said they would skip the straw poll. is it still relevant. >> that is i question for iowans. and it used to be defining and patty ann that you have to go in there and make a play. but we have seen increasing number of people deciding it is too much of the evangeliical conservative base that defines the winner and let's move on to new hampshire and south carolina and get a sense of what the general public electorate is looking for. at the moment i think that is why scott walker the governor of wisconsin looks to be in a dominant position in iowa wa. he is appealing to the base and using the fact that wisconsin is a neighboring state to win re conservative and evangeliowa cal votes. >> how important is it? >> iowa should do more for the republican party. it hasn't voted for a republican president in how many years and their policy is big government subsidies for agriculture crops and that doesn't work well with the republican voters. let other states compote to have a role. and match more with electing someone nationwide. >> thank you both for joining us. >> and the pitch is high and the world leaders meeting in the g- seven summit. president obama talking about the battle against isis. >> and the trial with jamesholmes uproar in court over something he put on twitter. shopping online... ...is as easy as it gets. wouldn't it be great... ...if hiring plumbers, carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog-walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com. no more calling around. no more hassles. and you don't even have to be a member to start shopping today. angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today. >> the war in isis taking on new uedgy as the g- seven is wrapping up. the iraqi leader said the u.s. led coalition is not helping his government do enough to defeat the terrorist army. for his part president obama acknowledged that our strategy to defeat isis is a work in progress even as he pledges support for iraq. andrew poke is a former u.s. army intelligence officer and former advisor to nato in afghanistan and now a professor in the clarmont college. how would you assess the strategy to deal with isis? >> well i am moderately encourageaged the iraqis capture biji. but it doesn't fix the problem. in the absence of u.s. troops are the militias the kurds and the shiite militias you saw new's reports that the shiite militias were involved in the capture. the problem is the more you use those folks, the more you alienate the sewnies who are co to defeating isis. the folks hate them. >> and prime minister of iraq said hey, we need more help and support from the united states isn't that all we are doing since the last u.s. forces pulled out and even before then? >> we have given the iraqis weapons and training. and as defense secretary carter said it comes down to the will to fight. and the police forces don't have as much of that as the shiite militia and it is kurds, right? the administration needs to a mp the weapons to the kurds which the iraqi sfrl government would hate but at least offer us's better proxy than the shiite militias that are no friends of ours. >> and the american people don't seem too impressed with the strategy going forward. the polling completed last week when asked if the obama administration has a clear strategy of defeating isis. only 19 percent. 19 percent of those responding said yes. and more than 70 percent said no. the president said we have a strategy but he said we to to gel it with the iraqis before it is all finished. what are the folks isis thinking about approximate this? >> the thinking we don't have a strategy is shared by the isis and g-7 and 70 percent of the america. we are in the majority. if i were isis i would not be afraid of what the americans are throwing at me rit. i would know that sun ni and iraq and syria will be with me as long as the only alternative is the increasingly pro iraqi and openly pro iranian syrian forces. i wouldn't be worried about them at all. >> the president said it will take time. and ultmately isis is going to be defeated. where does he get it? >> he is only going to be president orth year and a half. you don't want to be to cynical, but if you show moderate ground gains, this is milwaukee or marco rubio or someone else's problem. >> thank you. >> right now, a court appointed seek tryst taking the stand in the trial against james holmes. the judge reprimanding the prosecutor after he sent a tweet. the da referencing the sprue with holmes. i agree on the video and i hope the jordo, too. >> and back with our legal panel thank you both for joining us. heather, you are a trial attorney. how serious is this? >> it is very serious and the judge was not too closed with what the prosecutor did. and if you are on trial, you are on stage. and so not only the tweet itself. but the fact that the jurors could have looked over and sewn him to do this when the jourors are paying attention. it is totally bad form and understandable that the judge could get angry. >> the prosecutor was wrong in tweeting on cross examination. >> what he said. and he agrees with the expert. and as heather mentioned, you don't want the jorto so it. and texting in a crucial. the case turns on that witness. turns on that. and the jury will so that. and if you are representing the defendant. it is not part. it is not on record that the prosecutor was slouching or tweeting and the judge should come down on him harder. it is not really going to have an outcome on the case. >> you are six weeks into trial and all of the lawyers are exhausted. you are not sleeping or eating. and focused on the case. you don't want to be doing either. >> you have to stay off social media. and again, the jurors see the device. >> and a lot of times, the court takes way the cell phones of the jurors and that is a reason for them not to be jealous of you. we are talking a death penalty case. >> they have victims, pay attention. you want to object. and you don't want to tweet. >> if they are not paying attention and miss something. >> what if it goes to an appeal is it an issue to over turn the verdict. >> if he's found guilty and sentenced to death. it will be a polled. you can throw in everything. and if you have a disinterested prosecutor, somehow or some weigh they will get before the appellet. >> and you might have had impact ands were they on themselves had social med why. and even on the weekends you don't want jurors to think that are allowed to go to a movie. >> you have to on remember jourors awe get an opportunity to talk to them. they are interested in you. and they spend every day with you lawyers and they are paying attention to what you do. they see you. and goggle your life. and you want to make sure you are serving your cloint not only 9- 5. >> and so is googling the prosecutor is that acceptable. >> you are not supposed to read about the case. but you can learn about the judge and attorneys and court reporter, that part is not off limits. >> it is fair that they the same to you. >> thank you both so much. >> and talking about technology. apple giving fans an eye fall today a they unfield a new product in san francisco. we are live at that event. >> chaos in a pool party. and all captured on tape. an officer pulls the gun. across america, people are taking charge of their type 2 diabetes... ...with non-insulin victoza. for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza. he said victoza works differently than pills and comes in a pen. victoza is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once a day, any time. and the needle is thin. victoza is not for weight loss but it may help you lose some weight. victoza is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza is not insulin. do not take victoza if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza or any of its ingredients. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction may include swelling of face lips, tongue or throat fainting or dizziness, very rapid heartbeat problems breathing or swallowing, severe rash or itching. tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. serious side effects may happen in people who take victoza including inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis) which may be fatal. stop taking victoza and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis, such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen or from your abdomen to your back with or without vomiting. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. taking victoza with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, and headache. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. if your pill isn't giving you the control you need... ask your doctor about non-insulin victoza. it's covered by most health plans. when i started at the shelter, no one wanted benny. so i adopted him. he's older so he needs my help all day. when my back pain flared up i was afraid i would have to give him away. i took tylenol at first but i had to take 6 pills to get through the day. then my friend said, "try aleve." just 2 pills, all day. and now, i'm back for my best bud! aleve. all day strong. and try aleve pm now with an easy open cap. hi, everyone. coming up on the real story, i don't know about you, but one of my favorite movies. shahshang redemption. and we'll have the video of the boston terror suspect being shot by police released to the public. what does it show or not show. >> new information on a security loop hole in the skies. the tsa failing to disquaff 73 workers of tsa whose names were on the check list. the tsa delegated them to the airports and airlines themselves and they relied on incomplete information. missing social security numbers and names not written out >> a 48-year-old man in australian arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. he drove a stolen bulldozer in a house where a woman and her two children were sloping. there were no injuries. the man stole the bulldozer from a nearby plant. they used paper spray to top the suspect and stop the bulldozer. >> foul out in a texas pool party. a dallas police officer pulls his guns on the teens there. casy has more on this. >> reporter: patty ann, in mckinney, texas. 30 miles north of dallas. police were called to a community pool in a neighborhood to it a report of kids fighting at a party that was going on there. the attendee shot it and uploaded it to youtube. it went viral. >> a officer throws a 15 year old girl to the grouped and she begs someone to call her mother. and then watch this. he then draws his pistol on the other teams. he is a ten year veteran of the department. he is on administrative lead while an internal investigation plays out. >> they will interview those involved and we are talking to everybody that we come in contact or involved in this incident. nthree officers initially responded and nine showed up and said the large crowd did not disperse. homeowners in the neighborhood said the party was growing out of hand and people showed up uninvited and caused trouble. some are supporting the police. and in believe that there are racial undertones and the they are flooded with calls calling for the officer's resignation. the police chief seen in the video was released to her family. casy thank you. >> and science fikdz moving closer to reality. helping robots after disasters. we'll show the amazing things they can do. and apple kicks off a big conference. they are live in the event with more joe. >> reporter: jon, it is all about sock ware here in san francisco. and how it will change the way you use your iphone and ipad. and what is going to happen with apple and music, coming up next. e grams of protein... and 26 vitamins and minerals. and now with... ...twice as much vitamin d ...which up to 90% of people don't get enough of. the sunshine vitamin! ensure. take life in. well, a mortgage shouldn't be a problem your credit is in pretty good shape. >>pretty good? i know i have a 798 fico score thanks to the tools and help on experian.com. kaboom... well, i just have a few other questions. >>chuck, the only other question you need to ask is, "what else can you do for me?" i'll just take a water... get your credit swagger on. become a member of experian credit tracker and find out your fico score powered by experian. fico scores are used in 90% of credit decisions. cutting edge technology that could alter the response to emergencies. robots cutting through a wall turns valves and working on other tasks at a disaster simulation site in california. teams from around the world competing for a $2 million research award. researchers have been working for years on building robots that can maneuver three danger zones. >> we get most of our ideas about robotics from science fiction, and we want to show a little bit of science. the reason you need robots is when it's too dangerous for people to go into a particular site. the great example was at fukushima. they could have gone in there and vented the reactor and prevented the explosions. >> a group from south korea took home the top prize. >> cool stuff. mac attack at the worldwide developers conference in san francisco where apple is unveiling a wide range of new products set to shock, awe and change their tech game. more live from san francisco with a look. jo? >> reporter: hey, john you know oftentimes we hear about apple hardware, though ipads and hardware. today it's all about software. 6,000 app developers people that build the apps that work on your phone inside this building behind me. listening to ceo tim cook. they have unveiled a number of big software updates, an update to the software that runs on your mac laptop osx el captain has been unveiled here with more security and more features. also on your phone, ios 9 unveiled just moments ago. enhances the battery life and what apple says it can do and also enhanced security and a couple of other features including serie esiri the voice assistant and more on apple pay now available at more than 1 million locations. apple is also expanding it to the united kingdom but the big headline has not come out of this event. we expect to hear much more about this much anticipated streaming music service. apple acquired beats and beats music last year for a very hefty price tag. we expect to hear more about a potential $10 a month music streaming service available in the coming months to compete against spotify and pandora, so if all the other big apple announcements about hardware today is really about how the software works. jon? >> jo ling kent have fun in san francisco. >> what do barbara bush and others have in combo? it's all part of the final 30 coming next. ♪ (piano music) ♪ fresher dentures, for the best first impression. love loud, live loud polident. ♪ ♪ fresher dentures... ...for those breathless moments. hug loud, live loud, polident. ♪ ♪ put your hand over your heart. is it beating? good! then my nutrition heart health mix is for you. it's a wholesome blend of peanuts, pecans and other delicious nuts specially mixed for people with hearts. planters. nutrition starts with nut. just in new york state police officials say they have received more than 300 leads on those two convicted murderers who escaped from prison in upstate new york near the canadian border. it's just one of several high-profile prison breaks in recent years. in 2008 eight inmates busted out of a new mexico prison by climbing pipes inside a wall and slicing a hole in the roof. all of them were caught that. same year a female inmate escaped from an indiana prison with the help of a prison guard. she remained on the run for four months. in 1997 six inmates managed to tunnel out of a pennsylvania maximum security prison that had been considered escape-proof. they were all eventually caught and in 196 it three inmates managed to get out of the famous alcatraz prison in san francisco bay using raft made from prison coats and rubber cement. they were never found, but officials think they may have drowned. and it's time now for the final 30. barbara bush turns the big 9-0 today, and to celebrate the milestone mrs. bush is backing a $7 million challenge to create a mobile app aimed at improving adult literacy. china, deploying drones to fight cheating. they are flying over testing centers to scan for signals from illegal devices smuggled by students taking the annual college entrance exam. the times we live in. and a reunion that's so heartwarming, a naval officer in california surprising his 5-year-old daughter during her dance rehearsal after being deployed ten months. welcome home. >> that's great. thanks for joining us. "the real story" with gretchen carlson starts now. >> thanks very much guys. ahead, brand new video out of boston as police take down a suspect in a potential terror attack there. plus the stunning prison break. it's like "shawshank redemption." investigators now looking for accomplices on the inside. and the 2016 power index, a look at the latest on who is up and who is down. i'm gretchen carlson. "the real story" starts right now. ♪ all right. so you're going to check out this brand new video showing the moment that boston officers fatally shoot a suspect in a terror plot to kill police. hi everyone.