effects that you felt in your -- >> i'll give you a very specific example. but just to the optimism point for a second. i do think that the topic is recognized. two, three years ago it wasn't. if you consider that progress, raising the focus, raising the visibility, sounding the alarm and having people hear it that's progress. the next you have to do something. we were banging away. no one was listening a few years ago. so we have a pretty good investment portfolio. $70 billion round numbers in bonds. and i never believed for a moment that a maturing treasury bill or bond wouldn't be paid. i never believed it. we run the place, what if we're wron wrong. so in the week before we raised half a billion dollars of cash. unusually cash. we went to two banks which i

found funny. we were worried that the federal government wouldn't pay and we prepared to give the money to two banks. neither had been supported by the u.s. government but it was a relevant point. we put it into two banks. we did enough cash flow to know if we were wrong we could run our business for 30 days on that. >> so you planned for. >> we did. >> to fall. >> i couldn't imagine that a maturing bill wouldn't be paid. >> that was the bob used the word back in 1993-94 when he said it was literally unthinkable that we wouldn't hit the debt limit. yet it came far closer. >> again, two separate issues. a maturing bond doesn't require a higher debt limit. the bond matures and you issue new. so we couldn't imagine that a maturing obligation wouldn't get paid. the fact they couldn't borrow

more, but the politics of the moment were unclear. and i couldn't -- it wasn't visible enough to any of us to roll the dice and bet the ranch. we had enough in the mattress so that if we were wrong we could keep the place going. >> didn't have to put money away? >> i hope -- we're going to need a bigger mattress. >> mayor, let me ask, you referred to it. could you have done what did you without the requirement you had to balance your budget? >> i would have wanted to. i believe in fiscal integrity, i believe in the fundamental principles that you cannot spend more than you have. that you have to have a balanced budget. with or without a balanced budget, the oversight agency,

also we have rating agencies. when i came in to government in 1992 with then rare rel dell the city was facing a miss cal crisis. i learned some tough lessons there. i used to be in the vestment banking business. i paid attention to the finances of the city very closely so fiscal integrity and fiscal security are very, very important to me. we have a lot of people watching what goes on in our city. and so the ratingings also, and i'm trying to get our rating up. i think the facts that we have a balanced budget requirement, we have to produce a five-year plan. people understanding that i use the word so it's unfathomable that we won't have a balanced budget. we have to have a five-year plan approved. and it would be a hajer embarrassment not to do those things.

it a five year plan also forces you to think about every dlal you want to spend. you save, that's $5. so it ensures a certain amount of discipline but to plan for the future. i'm planning for the future. not sure what the folks here are doing other than get through the next news cycle. so that kind of discipline really is required. and you have to understand the consequences of your actions. i'm left with the impression back in philly and many other mayors some of the proposed cuts that come down through these bchs we're not clear that many members of congress understand the consequences of these cuts, the impact it will have at home. whether it's cops program or -- you can name a hundred proms, which all have their constituencies, but there have to be fundamentalings.

fiscal integrity has to be one of them. i think i agree with the senator, agree with dave, that it has to abbalanced approach. not one thing. a number of different things. you have to have core principles about what you're trying to do, what are the outcomes and where are you going. those are the kinds of things many of us don't see and don't here about at the local level. >> let me have you wrap this up with a fine hippocratic oath to these next 6 months between now and the election. doesn't look like much is going to get done. what is the best way for both parties to do no harm to the goal between now and november? >> i think it's to keep telling the story and sounds so corny, town meetings, i would find out where they were at for me and then have a town meeting in that

place. can i speak for five minutes and stay for two hours. these people won't expose themselves to the public whept -- i don't know why that slipped out there like that. wait. where were we here. >> communication. talking. going back to their -- when irskin and i were on the road we speak for 10 minutes and take questions for an hour and stick around sometimes. and people are saying how come people don't understand where we are? and they say because you're listening to people who are interested, more interested in their re-election than their country. let's just pick, grover norquist is one smart cookie but he's the most powerful man in america right now. how does that sound to you that grover norquist, the american

for taxpayers reform or whatever it is, is the most powerful man in america because he has 95% of the sitting members of my party pledging never to raise a single penny of tax without a commensurate cut in spending. and so we said here's one for you, grover, babe. we're taking the tax end spen turs, taking 100 billion and the other to give the lower tax base. what can he do to you. he can't murder you, can't burn your house down. the only thing he can do is defeat you for re-election or put some dud into your primary to take you out. and if that means more to you than your country and extremity you shouldn't even be in congress. >> that will be the last word. gentlemen, thank you all very much. [ applause ] >> jay, that was fun. got to get out of here.

>> the federal communications commission goes before the house financial services oversight subcommit they afternoon. chairman and the commissioners will answer questions about fcc operations. we'll have live coverage starting at 2:30 eastern here on c-span 3. in congress today, the house votes on continuing the violence against women act t white house threatened to veto the republican plan if passed. the administration says the bill eliminate toss many protections including for lesbian gay transsexual and transgender victims. the how begins debate on defense programs and policy for next to year. you can see the house live on c-span. and the senate is considering five alternative budget resolutions for next year, all offered by republicans including president obama's budget plan. up to six hours of debate on budgets and you can see it all live from the floor of the senate on c-span 2. also coming up this afternoon, book tv.org will be live with arthur brooks, author of "the

road to freedom." he says big government policies threatened american traditions. hear what he has to say at 5:30 eastern at book tv.org. >> reading has become over the last 200 years, the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country. because it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what is the few once held close. the president can quote mark twain because he read and the post man can understand the reference because he's read huck finn too require a lot more stelf and cleverness w. careful reading of books and newspapers and now material on the internet, it reveals to ordinary people like us. wasn't for nothing that the nathsys made bonfires with

books. >> in 1992 ann quinldlan won a pulitzer prize. in a few weeks you can talk to the best-selling author on book tv sunday june 3 on c-span 2. get a head start watching some of her comments over the years on line at the c-span video library on her writings, beliefs and convictions and her life in journalism. all archived and searchable at c-span.org/video library. >> when people are saying to him don't take the vice presidency, right now you are the most -- you are a powerful majority leader. don't take the vice presidency, you won't have power. johnson says power is where power goes meaning i can make power in any situation. his whole life, nothing in his life previously makes that seem

like -- that's what he had done all of his life. >> sunday night the conclusion of our conversation with robert caro on the passage of power, volume 4 in the years of lyndon johnson, his multi-volume biography of the 36th president, sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> ohio republican senator ron portman and california democrat congressman lavier on the fiscal challenges. john harris moderates the panel and includes patricia murphy of the daily beast. this event was hosted by the peter peterson foundation. >> we'll plunge right into it. the first thing i would like our panelists to do, i propose that we go down the line, starting with senator portman here is to test the premise of this panel which as i take it is that substantively it might be challenging but not really that

difficult to solve the mathematics equation of the deficit that people could sit down with a calculator and a legal pad and get it done. but that the dimension of this is the political one. and obviously this does take place in the context of a euro failure in 2011. there was a hope that as happened occasionally in the past in washington you get mature reasonable people in a room, throw the reporters out, they don't come back until you got it solved as was done in 1997 with president clinton and then speaker gingrich, was done in 1990 with republicans and the first president bush, in 1983 with social security. but if you can replicate that, get reasonable people 18 room away from the glare of the lights that there would be a solution to this. 2011 that proved not to be true. simpson-bowles didn't do anything to tackle the

structural deficit. good press, no substantive action. this conversation extensive conversations with speaker boehner and president obama ended in failure and recrimination. the supercommittee on which both of you sit didn't get the work done. so, let me ask the question. if you didn't have to worry about the political blow back from your own parties, and from public opinion how difficult would it be for the two of you to sit down and solve, come up with a solution that you think would be in the public interest and not violate your principle. >> how hard substantively. >> you could do it in 20 minutes. >> we just did it. look. first of all, it is more difficult than it was in 1997. or in 1990 or 1982. the fiscal hole that washington has dug is deeper.

and for those who say let's just go back to what we did in '97, we h we had a growing economy. we don't have that now. we have both weak economic growth and increasing spending on the entitlement side particularly. it's a far higher level. 100% gdp ratio. hasn't been that way since world war ii and then it was defense spending that could be curtailed and we didn't have these long term of medicare and social security issues that we have now. medicare wasn't even in existence. so it's a different type of problem and a larger scope. forgetting politics for a second if we can, the changes that we make are going to have to be more fundamental more difficult, and my own view strongly held, i don't think javier would disagree in general, it has to be both spending restraints, you

can't spend more than you take in and you have to have growth. back in 2007, when i was the budget director, i benefitted from the fact that we had kbroth in the economy. we were able to get the deficit down to 161 billion, about 1.2% of the economy. that wasn't too long ago but it required growth in addition to spending restraint so i think it's harder to be honest with you and i think it has to be done carefully to avoid having a devastating impact on our economy at a time when we have the weakest recovery since the great depression. >> substantively harder. >> absolutely. >> congressman, what is your view the? >> chase all the reporters away, could you get done relatively easily? >> if we could hang the special interests and the sacred cows at the door with our coat as we walk in and leave the egos behind as well, it is simple math. and we've got enough simplists throughout to guide us whether

it's bowles-simpson, plans bipartisan, both plans dealt with what i think most observers say must be the element of a good compromise, that is, restraint on spending, changes, increases to real revenue, tax revenue, and making sure that the policies both interplay so you have economic growth. and it's not rocket science. i think most of us have gone through this enough whether it's super committee or bowles-simpson or the biden group or gang of six, that we've seen this. and you can only do the movie so many times in different ways. and so, i think you can get there. i think the problem is that most of the folks who get to make decision decisions aren't experienced that moss americans on the cusp of losing their home or job are suffering.

it's like the situation in iraq and afghanistan where 1% of america is impacted by these two wars in iraq and afghanistan where we don't feel it. i guarantee you most of the folks on capitol hill don't feel the economic pain that today some american family is fighting through to make sure that she persevere. if they did i think it would be easier to get this done. but the reality is most of us who get elected don't have to worry about that. i don't think it's that tough. i'd be will to deal with some of the programs that are near and dear to me because of what i've seen them do for families including my parents, folks who had little chance to get educated, but i'm not willing to tell someone i'm going to compromise and the only thing is those that are for working families and children. >> one view of the problem that is the egos in the room that

make makes it very hard. i wonlds fer there is another view which is not the egos in the room but the decisions within the country that make this so hard. you got one election twoyn 008, that points dramatically in one direction. to the benefit of democrats. you had another in 2010 that points the exact opposite direction to the benefit of republicans. maybe what we need is not a back room deal but for the public itself to decide which side is right and which side is wrong instead of sending mixed signals. >> maybe what we need is a campaign that aligns campaign for governor. one of the things that made wonderful reform is candidate clinton campaigned on. you bring the election along and govern more responsibly so the question should be how does the media use the function to keep focused on the issues and how does the media communicate the consensus of what needs to be done. how do we create structures that hold the candidates accountable.

with good follow-up questions and perhaps these proposals a few years ago, sunday evenings devoted to candidates talking at length with each other with good moderation about the issues. then how do we dampen down the deception in third party advertising. >> in lieu of or addition to the presidential debates. >> in addition to the presidential debates. i think you can bring the public up to speed on these, to accept the trade-off and the sacrifice and break through. there is an allegiance census and we all have to sacrifice in trying to protect the vulnerable. can the public be raised up to a level of understanding it will make the sacrifices and also see the benefits of the future generation of doing that. we can campaign on making it hard tear govern. we do that this year we're going to be in real trouble. >> do you buy that, there is an elite consensus that gets muddied as this enters the realm

of politics or fundamental antagonism itself, what's the problem and there isn't an elite consensus. i was positive there was, simpson-bowles would have been ? if there was such an elite consensus, simpson bowles would have been more -- i think the

american people are way out ahead of their leaders on this. the leaders need to follow the hfr- >> what's your evidence for that? >> anecdotally when i go around to talk to people, when i go to campaign events, when i talk to people people in cafes or starbucks, people are worried. >> and you hear them saying i'm so worried, should you cut my benefits? i'm so worried i want to pay more taxes? >> i don't think they know the difference between simpson simpson-bowles and a the gang of six. they understand numbers. they understand the correction that the deficit is going and the peril that the country is in. i think they understand that and they understand that members of congress are not making

sacrifices in their own -- with their own constituencies in order to getting across the finish line. it's the first time i think a lot of voters and taxation have seen it equated to mortality. i think they see just this calcification in congress and they're very frustrated. so i think the consensus is not among the elite. i think it's among the people. i think that's why there is hope there could be movement on this issue because elected leaders here it and the question is who are the winners and losers. if you look back to 1986 when there was the tax reform, each side gave a good bit. so both sides have to give, but they have to feel like they're getting enough in return. i don't think you see that happening and the leadership not

enamong the super -- i don't think you see the leadership at the presidential level, the congressional leadership level really driving this. president reagan drove tax reform. we haven't heard that. >> i'd like to break with patricia. kathleen talked about the elite consensus and i haven't seen it yet. usual talking more on the solution of the simpson-bowles. >> we can't get money by spending cuts and we have to be responsible and not tank the economy. >> the vast majority of my con statistic uhe ebtss would agree with everything you just said and i think they're it actually ahead of where washington is. when i talk back home about you can't spend more than you take home, people kind of go like this since they've all got family budgets and a lot are in

small business and they understand it doesn't work. so there's a sense out there that washington is careening down a path toward miss cal catastrophe and there may be less consensus about solutions, but it's partly because of the leadership. and it does require leadership. not to be partisan here, but patricia makes a betwegood poin. it's not about ronald reagan. it's about bill clinton and reform. it's about presidential leadership and providing cover to your own party. and i'm not going to speak for javier. wouldn't dare do that. but democrats immediate a little help. we had a veto threat which wasn't done the way president obama wanted it done and that's not leadership. so i think it requires a couple

of things. one, taking what i think is a consensus among folks, not just the elite, that we're in a serious fiscal crisis. crisis is not too long a word to use. and second is leadership on what are the solutions. you're right, people concerned about raising taxes, concerned about cuts to popular benefit programs. but if there is sense of the greater good and both have restraint and growth, i think people can move it forward. but it requires leadership in terms of the solutions. >> you've got to jump in here. >> well, two years before president reagan's tax reform in '86, he he worked with congress to pass deficit reduction plan.

80% of that deficit reduction plan relied on tax revenue to work we can't get unstuck here in washington, d.c. because of the word taxes. there is no way to resolve the depth of the problem without dealing with taxes. that's where the difficulty occurs with well intentioned republicans and well intentioned democrats. and rob said it, as well, he talked about getting the spending under control and economic growth. i mentioned intending controls, economic growth and i'm willing to say you have to deal with the tax side of things. when the larkest contributor to the deficits over the last ten years have been the bush tax cuts because they were unpaid for, you've got to deal with it. and if you were dealing with the budgetary side, the propose kragss side of what do you think does, the discretionary aspect,

and you don't recognize that two-thirds of all the spending since 2001 has come in the department of defense and yet you have a crew in the house who wants tos to spare the departmf defense of any cuts, in fact wants to increase the department, you have to load all of the cuts to services to americans and taxpayers, education, health, clean air, clean water, and you can't do it. so if you're not willing to talk taxes and if you're trying to load it also domestic discretionary services, it won't work. and so i think you do, john, have to essentially put people in that back room, tell them to hang their egos and their special interest pledges at the door and then just don't come out until you you come out with a plan. there's just no way realistically that we'll deal with this and none of the would

i pabipartisan plans dealt with this without incorporating taxes in some fashion. >> your action runs -- >> an attempt to help the young. >> good for you. >> is there an answer or is one component more responsible for the 2011 failure to get a grand bargain? democratic entrance against over spending or republican in-trance against over taxation in is one more to blame?against over spending or republican in-trance against over taxation in is one more to blame? >> i don't think it's productive to spend time asking who is as to blame. there's plenty of blame to go around. the question is how do we get where we need to go. when people campaign for the presidency, they do act on their promises most of the time.

president clinton is right about that. it approaches 75%. getting that laid out is very important and when they campaign saying read my lip, no new taxes and i have to raise them, they're punished. when they campaign promising a middle class tax cut and i won't raise taxes for my new program, it's harder to say to congress. so we need to ensure that we've made it possible to govern from this campaign and i think that should be the focus, not looking back and placing blame. >> it's been second that second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience. and we've heard clinton say that i think, i'm pair grazing, but i think fairly that the stars might be aligned after the election. perhaps in a lame duck session or early in 2013. and you hear this line a lot, the argument being that enough factors are converging, the debt limit runs out, the tax