ambitions of the jeep as to what this is simply implement the decisions taken, complemented in 2011 by a few useful measures. now we have g-20 after the crisis of version. but that is not my ambition, it is not my vision. the credibility of the deep-20 is at stake. -- of the g-20 is at stake. if we do not focus on improving the g-20 an addition, it will be to convince the world to a new crisis. nobody in the g-20 is saying that pressed by the crisis, we will not be examining the emergencies, the current emergency's now. the crisis is being overcome.

and we can manage the situation mly.alling -- more call m i do not want the usual routine. it is easy to be bold when the world is on the edge of a precipices then went home prevails. -- and when -- than when calm prevails. fences preference is to add new projects to those that are at a standstill for far too long, one on which global prosperity and stability depends. we offer our partners the choice of action and ambition. only the g-20 has the way, the legitimacy, and the decision

making power to get these projects of the future of the impetus that they need. for my part, we will be consulting our partners and i can see three projects. the first is the reform of the international money -- monetary system, which will have to be tackled as early as next year. who can deny that the stability -- the instability in the currency exchange rate is often less than purchases special threat to world growth? how can businesses plan for their production and exports when the bureau -- euro from parity to 1.60. the continued to advocate -- who can continue to advocate that we can produce and sell to the

dollar's zone with such an erratic system? since the early 1970's, we have been living in an international monetary non-system. n-o-n, a non-system. we have not found a new international monetary system. i am not talking about returning to the fixed exchange-rate system. what is desirable is to create instruments to prevent excessive currency volatility. the accumulation of imbalances. the search for ever higher level of foreign exchange reserves for countries facing the sudden mathis -- massive withdrawal of international capital. i am wary of the fact that this is a sensitive issue. they should be broached without taboos.

i proposed holding an international seminar between the world's monetary specialists which could be held in china. why not? it took a year to establish the bretton woods system, and it is quite imaginable that we should organize an international seminar, bringing together the best monetary experts in china and to think about the future monetary system that would succeed the bretton woods system. france would go even further by proposing three tracks. first we must strengthen our crisis management mechanisms. since 1990, emerging countries have experienced 42 episodes a sudden international capital withdrawal, jeopardize in the stability and growth. 42. and they have therefore lost their reserves since 1990.

we have to review the international mechanisms to have more efficient multilateral systems, and we're looking at the imf instruments, the world must be capable of building a very large sums to deal with a rational market -- irrational market speculation. also like to discuss the internet but doctrine one capital movements. -- i would also like to discuss the international doctrine of capital movement. reality has showed us that it is not the case. it is legitimate for country's highly dependent on foreign capital to take measures to regulated at times of crisis. if the best guarantee about the rise in protectionist risk in this area as in others is the developer of multilateral groups. their rules protect freedom.

the absence of rules destroy freedom. we should consider the stability of the national monetary system dominated by a single currency and and multi currency world. the accumulation of foreign currencies in certain countries accounts for the deficit in the united states. everyone is aware of this. in london, the g-20 countries decided on an exceptional annotation of rights. this is the subject of growing interest. we're nowhere establishing the global conservancy which cannes -- keynes propose, but this would help build the stability of the system as a whole. finally, we must find a way to better coordinate the economic

and monetary policies of the major economic zones. the g-20 in pittsburgh, we establish the framework that must allow each of us to implement the appropriate economic policies, but we have to go further and achieve a new framework for consultation of foreign exchange developments. this form is currently that g-7 rout. how can we talk about exchange rates without china? it is meaningless. we must discuss the best response to this unavoidable question. it is absolutely unavoidable. there is nothing sacrilegious about talking about these subjects. to discuss them scholarly within the most legitimate form, the g- 20, is something to be desired. why wait for the next crisis?

it could have been palpable consequences, since the states will not have the same resources to deal with that. the second project which is no less ambitious on the part of usual elicit a number of sarcastic comments, but what i've will they give up on, is the prices of -- the volatility of prices for raw materials. it is a catastrophe. think about what happens with wheat prices. last spring producers were crying for help. prices were falling. less than six months ago, i went to one county to talk to the producers of cereals, to explain that they were almost on the verge of bankruptcy, and six

months later, today the bad harvests in russia, a catastrophe there, and the prices have exploded. then again think that such a system can function properly? have we forgotten the homegirl riots in haiti or africa. foodstuffs' suddenly skyrocketed in 2008? between 2008 and 2010, no one has done anything about it. hill has forgotten the tragic consequences for the sudden rise in the price of oil and gas all land -- followed by equally sudden drops? is there anyone who would dare say that this subject is too difficult and expects us to do nothing about it? in france, i have identified

those who will always say it is better to do nothing. but we are not. to do that. to do that. going france proposes that its g-20 partners should tackle this issue with the ambitious and pragmatism. we will be presiding over the g- 20, and we will tackle this issue with ambition and pragmatism. first, i like to raise the question of functioning of financial derivatives markets, the derivative markets and raw materials. why should we regulate the financial derivatives market alone only? france's convince the world that we have to convince to regulate in financials.

we should also be capable of doing that in the financial derivatives market for raw materials, extending regulation to raw materials as part of this new desire. it is indispensable. we must not finance speculation. no one knows how this market functions. no one knows who's the players are, and no one understands how it functions. next, with regard after cultural materials, several corrections could be explored without preconditions. market transparency -- it would be useful to have more transparency. storage possible -- policies, and also the creation by international financial institutions of importing countries to protect themselves against exchange-rate volatility. finally, the energy costs --

france's been given a mandate to propose measures for the 2011 summit for price volatility. we propose a transparency measures and a substantial dialogue between producers and consumers. if you complain about the price of oil when it is at $120, you would not be heard. the third project proposed for the french g-20 presidency is global governance reform, which i spoke to u.s. linked about here last year. it will be the main global forum for financial issues, but in must give itself the means to work more effectively. shouldn't we create the g-20 secretariat to monitor the implementation of decisions in deal with issues in conjunction with all relative -- relevant international organizations?

it is true that the presidency of that g-20 rotates. who monitors the implementation and follows up on the important technical decisions? we do not want to create a new administration. should not the g-20 create new subjects such as development? should we not be adopting new best practices for public aid? instead of the countries that are people were, perhaps we should look at the standards for the international labor organizations. we should not pay public aid to countries that do not comply with the basic standards of the international labor organization. they have standards which everyone should comply with.

and i also would like us to discuss the financing and possible tax on financial transactions. without this test, developed countries would not be able to increase public aid and to implement the commitments made in copenhagen if we do not have finances. all of our budgets are in deficit. these financings are absolutely essential to meet the millennium goals. shouldn't the g-20 be discussing the financing of a climate agreement? it is important that the copenhagen agreement should be implemented, whether we're talking about innovative financing or other issues, i am planning to discuss with the president the next that's to be

taken. france will also suggest further talks on world governance. we should do same in the coming months for the imf. and how can the g-20 ignore the specialized economies and job trade? they all need reform. if we do not send a strong signal to the u.n. general assembly on an interim reform of the security council, and we have been debating for reform of the security council for 20 years, and will the deadlock continue for another 20 years? what is the point on purging our israeli and palestinian friends to negotiate it at the un we cannot implement reform which is indispensable in which nobody wishes to play its cards clearly? we need the interim reform.

and i spoke to a blank about the g-20. i would like to say a word about the g-8. some condemn that, some say it has a rosy future. it focuses on security issues. france intends -- france believes in the future of the g- 8 and will take great care to prepared this g-8 summit. it will take place next spring. it brings together the major democracies to have a lot in common. this g-8 will be preceded by the home secretaries and ministers of the interior of the countries concerned. they will discuss some of it -- such as of common interest from a run to the middle east to afghanistan. there'll also be a discussion on partnerships with africa. i am more than ever convinced that africa success will be an

opportunity for africa. africa's failure would be dramatic for europe, for the future of europe and africa are closely tied. in copenhagen, we tried to get africa and europe to work together. africa has resources and young people, and it is very much in europe's interest to speak with one voice to africa and to give africa the way that it deserves in world governance, and the necessary financing. there are only 12 kilometers between africa and europe in the straits of gibraltar. you can see my state of mind on the eve of the presidencies of the geithner and the g-20. i want to play a collective role, quite obviously. we intend to act collectively.

everyone needs to move forward together. we're living in a very complex world, and france has presided over the eu in the past. but this is much more complicated because there are many more interests at stake. the peasants in india, the country people in china and in france, they all require and all have the same interests basically. a country like china can meet its monetary obligations and responsibilities, and subsequently locked we have a great opportunity to make the forthcoming year and useful year for stability, international stability. and france will play its part. ambassadors, i rely on you to convey this message, that france will continue to provide new ideas, and france will be loyal

to its past, because we are bringing new concepts and fundamentally, perhaps, but world's needs in the 21st injury -- new ideas, new projects, new ambitions. we must get out of the routine which was probably useful in the 20th-century, based on two world wars. france is ideally positioned. it is not a superpower or a small power, either. we can disseminate these new ideas and it will be a great year and a very interesting year. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> tomorrow on the "washington journal," a look at par un

policy. a discussion on the control and technology of the secure border initiative. following that, charlie cook, jennifer dunn a, and david wasserman with the cook political report talking about the midterm elections. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tuesday night at 8:00 p.m., president barack obama will give an oval office speech discussing the troop withdrawal from iraq and the shift of focus to the war in afghanistan. our live coverage begins tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> yesterday i signed a disaster declaration for the state of louisiana, and this morning i signed a disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> as the gulf coast march that the anniversary of her in katrina, look back at how the

federal government responded to the crisis, online it has been video library. all three, every program since 1987. it is washington your way. >> not town hall meeting with republican congressman joe barton of texas. topics include immigration, health care, and the proposed mosque at ground zero. this is about an hour. >> ok, hi there. of this is all taped up. ok, but i was wanting something so they could hear me. oh, this goes through there.

can you hear me ok? we're not that big anyway, so anyway, welcome to my town hall meeting. obviously i think that it is not necessary to state the obvious, but we do have c-span covering us today. that is what these and all that is about. i do not normally travel with my own mobile television operation. [laughter] so when it comes time for the q&a period, think about how you're going to look on the national news if what you say is decided to be newsworthy. [laughter] this is an open public meeting in everything i say is on the record. everything you say today normally would not be on the record. but since we have the television cameras here, to some extent it

is. i really only have one rule, and that is when we get to the question and answer period, i will try to get this many of you an opportunity to make a comment has wish to. you are here to talk to me and i am here to talk to you and listen to you. if someone says something did you agree with, you can applaud and tell them they are great. if you disagree with what they say, this is not a public debating society between the people in you -- that you disagree with. this is me, your congressman in yourself. you cannot get involved with someone across the way if you do not agree with them. they have the right to their opinion and you have the right to yours. we have maybe 40 people here so we should not have a big problem. but in some larger town hall meetings, sometimes i have to implement the rule. if you care not to speak in public but you still want to ask a question, that is what these little cards are for.

you just need to write it down where we can read it, and give as a way to get back to you. an e-mail address, a telephone number, or an old-fashioned mailing address works. and i will take as many questions as i can. i will report my questions and answers. as most tell halted, -- if i say i do not know, then i have a record of that and i can get my staff to research the answer and get it back to you. that is basically it. first thing i will comment on -- see the little sign here, that is a website that the republicans are using in the house of representatives to get your ideas. you can go to that website and key in your name and address. maybe even your congressional

district, and in this case it would be joe barton, sixth district, that is not a big tree. and tell what is on your mind, offer suggestions on how to improve the government. we look at those, compile those, and we try to use those real time on the floor of the house of representatives as we put together the republican -- the minority motions to recommits and sometimes if we win that vote, your idea might be brought up for a vote it does not cost anything and there is no way of tracking or anything like that. if you want to be a part of the process that is the way to do it. we're getting a lot of good feedback on that. americaspeakingout.com, and we will go from there. we will give you some handouts.

the first is about the budget situation. you can see in the bar chart, we had two years of a sliding balance, we had 9/11, we have budget deficits, and in the last year president bush's administration, and then president obama took office, and you can see that his budget, which does include the stimulus funding, the budget deficits have just exploded. last year was about $1.5 trillion. this year there is no budget that the president has proposed where the deficit goes below $800 billion. we cannot sustain our way of life in definitely with these huge budget deficits.

we cannot tax our way out of it. i think we have to cut spending. that is not just recall. we really, really have to do that. i have a bill called the real act, and it says, earned entitlement programs, you pay into social security, you serve in the military, you get your benefits. if you work for the federal government and you get a federal pension that you pay into, you get that. but if it is not an earned entitlement, we cut every program across the board at least 2% until we get the budget balance. [applause] in 218 people to vote for it. -- i need to hundred 18 people to vote for it. but then we treat everybody the

same. i treat his program the same as they treat his program as i treat her program. if if you have a program that is really special and really important, you can get a 60% vote to exclude your program from that budget reduction. so there is a kick out or fail- safe mechanism, but we simply have to start making those kinds of choices. under the current budget situation, at every program increases. every now and again we will try to cut one program. i think they can count on the fingers of one hand the number of federal programs that we have actually cut in the last five or six years. it just does not happen. the pressures under the current budget system is to increase spending more every year. and in this, do they have an automatic way to reduce

spending nearly every year, unless there was some sort of special case. you're not reading a lot about that act right now, but hopefully you will early in the next congress. next vein is the new health care a lot -- next thing is the new health-care law. you really cannot see this too well from where you are, but that is ok, even if you could see it, you could not understand it. at least i cannot understand it. it is almost indecipherable. the main thing that you need to know is that over half of this are brand new federal bureaucracies that are going to be funded, that have specific mandates in the new law, and it changes health care as we know it today, from a private sector

, hospital-doctor-patient system to a government-mandated system, a government-controlled system, if that i think is unsustainable. the tw of things -- that two things i think he should understand, every employer that provides health care must provide four options. .

>> in the employer provision, since it mandates or sets a floor about what the employer has to pay, in most cases, that's going to be like a bronze plan, let's say -- i'm making these numbers up. this isn't rocket science stuff, but the bronze plan costs $10,000 a year per employee and the employer has to pay 70% of that, so that's $7,000. so the platinum plan costs $20,000 and the employer pays 70% of that, that's $14,000. or eliminate health coverage for every employee and put people

into the public exchange options and pay a penalty, a tax, that's no more than $2,000 per employee. which is the smaller number, $2,000 tax or 7,000 to $14,000 premium? we have gotten data from some of the big corporations that are looking at it like catter pillar and john deare and they are saying it -- john deere, they are saying it makes sense to drop our employees because we save a lot of money. if you are a family that has your health insurance through a private employer-sponsored plan, when this kicks in in 2014, your employer is going to drop that and put you in these health benefit exchanges because they will save two to three times

what they will pay out in premiums if they keep the employer-based health care plans. that is going to radically change health care. these may be good or bad. let's assume they're good. what your employer was subsidizing in these plans, you are not going to get a subsidy unless you are a low-income american and won't offset the increased costs. the administrator over here is dictating what is put into these plans and also dictating what the plans costs. so you are going from a situation that is a private-based plan that the employers are subsidizing to a situation where there are few subsidies and the plan -- the $10,000 plan may be offered here, but you don't get your employer subsidy. so you, as the consumer, are going to pay more to get the

same amount and may pay more to get less. how many think you are going to like that? you're not. that's why i think the closer this gets to enactment, the more people are going to encourage their congressman to repeal this. it just makes sense. having said that. there are things we need to do in health care. we need to make sure that if you have a pre-existing condition, you have some plan or have the option to be in some plan and that you get coverage. we should have universal access to health insurance. if you want to be in some health insurance plan, we should make it possible for you to do it. and if you are low income and need a subsidy, let's talk about that. but let's don't have the mandate that every employer has to offer it and every person in america has to have it. if you are 18 and just come off

your parents' plan, you may feel like you might spend your money on college education rather than a health care plan. one of the good things about this plan is it does say you can stay on your parents' plan until you are 25 or 26. that's a good thing. that's one of the things that we put in the republican alternative. so republicans are not against improving health care, but we are against this. and the energy and commerce committee that i'm on as a senior republican and that i would be in line to be the chairman if the republicans take over, we will definitely do oversight on this and will certainly try to repeal a lot of this that doesn't make sense. the tax cuts, if nothing between now and december 31, all the tax

cuts put into place under president bush go away. now you may think that's a good idea, but if you are paying taxes, it's probably not a good idea. the 15% bracket for low-income americans, it goes away. all the intermediate brackets go away, at least 3%. capital gains, minimum, is currently 15%, goes to 20%. marriage tax penalty exclusion which i believe is 70 something thousands dollars is cut back to $46,000. alternative minimum tax exclusion is cut almost in half. if you are a married couple with both spouses working outside the home and most of your taxes are deducted through payroll tax deductions, you could easily see

your take-home pay as a couple reduced by $ 300, $400 a month. most families will feel that. i don't think in an economic situation where our recovery is still pretty shakey, we need to have a tax increase. and that's literally what's about to happen if we don't have some sort of a breakthrough between now and december. and i guess the last thing before i start taking questions, i just got back from afghanistan. i went with congressman ed towns, of brooklyn new york. there were six congressmen on the trip. five democrats, led by chairman towns and myself. interestingly enough, we stayed in kabul at the american embassy. and there are five democrats and me. who did they put in the obama

suite? me. i guess they thought it might help. i expected to have a red phone and have the president call and talk to me, but that didn't happen. the good news about afghanistan is that militarily, we are in good shape. not something you see in the press. but we have a good military plan. general petraeus is using the troops that the president has sent, the extra troops. they've got a very good strategic plan putting the troops out where the trouble spots are in conjunction with the afghan army. we're training and plusing up the afghan army, the afghan police force. the command and control situation is excellent. the ability to put people where we need them if there's a battle going on is really, really good. so militarily, more and more you'll see the taliban and al

qaeda retreat to the mountains in areas where there's not a lot of people and do these hit-and-run attacks and suicide bombing attacks and plose i have attacks, which are terror attacks. they aren't really attacks on the military so much as they are trying to scare the population. there is a lot of work to do, but militarily, we are going to do better and better. the key question in afghanistan is the will of the afghans to accept democracy and the afghan government to work with the afghan people. now, we take that for granted here in the united states. we have a constitution that starts with the words, "the people." afghanistan doesn't have a history of the people telling the government what to do. in afghanistan, the history is

more of a strong, central dictatorship, warlord, tribal system based on brute power and dictates to the people. that's not universally so, but their governmental structure is much less people intensive. i don't know the plight way to put that -- polite way to put that. so we are working with the afghans and as we implement the military strategy, there is a civilian counterpart to every general, colonel, capt, lieutenant, master -- captain, lieutenant, master sergeant. we are in control not only in the bltfield but the afghan people put in schools, put in

roads, water projects, new agricultural practices. we met with the kentucky national guard, for example. their colonel is a vet in kentucky and they are focusing on agriculture. so when they send out a combat patrol, as soon as the area is secure, they'll send out their civilian groups with what we call ag extension agents and they're teaching them how to do chicken farms, raise pigs and irrigate and things like this. so we are trying to kind of bring afghanistan into the 21st century in terms of economic issues and teach them also how to work together in a democratic fashion. and that, in my opinion, the key question of whether we win or lose in afghanistan. i do not think that we'll have a

military situation that we can pull all the troops out next july. that we are sending in the last combat troops just getting there. but i think the military situation is going to improve significantly. and if we can improve the civilian side of things, then, i think the future is hopeful. and i'm optimistic about a positive outcome in afghanistan. do we have our recorder to record the questions? the only reason i record is if i have to get an answer back to you that i i don't know off the top of my head. mr. harris came last night and he did get to ask his question and he asked me after the town hall if he came here today, would i call on him. and i said you come today, thinking he wouldn't be here --

[laughter] >> and i'll let you go first. well, he's first and he gets to go first. so you get the floor. >> thank you very much. i want to say thank you for the recognition and with your permission, i would like to give a little background before my questions. first is the subject of the mosque proposed at ground zero. for some reason some are ignoring or unaware of the main basic issue here and written in the muslim koran that once a land is controlled by the muslim religion, it be longs to them forever and they will fight indefinitely to this end. this concept is the root problem in hatred and conflict between the jews and the muslims. this cause has been going on since biblical times, this along

with the threat of iran wiped israel off the map is concernable. with a forth coming building of nuclear weapons. this has impact on america. if the mosque is built near ground zero, it gives a toe hold for the muslim site for their victory concept of 9/11. further, the source of money is in question with the recent grant of $38 billion to scrabe, two million to israel for jet fuel, a disparity exists. no one knows where the dollars are coming from, is it possible that the u.s. is funding some of these mosques? as a side comment, there was reference made to israel as a friend. it should have been ally.

should have been ally. additionally, with the iran problems and nuclear weapons close at hand, we need to say stop iran. this means to support israel with 100% rather than token talk. we need to support israel's right to self-defense, including the right to construct the housing that was put on hold by president obama. moreover, the president's proposal in dividing jerusalem is unrealistic. it is against christian principles and the bible books of exodus, joshua. the development of a new defense missile by lockheed needs to be accelerated and needs to be deployed in the middle east against iran's threat. the united states is facing serious economic problems using

the term political correctness. instead of the concept of reality. the term change should be changed to -- live within the government income and stop grants overseas. history has shown trying to buy friendship does not work. in closing, i want to say thank you for the signing of the letter to israel for self-defense and signing the reed-mcconnell letter on the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act. we are proud of you. >> i didn't know what he was going to say. i don't want my c-span people to think we planted this person. he did give me just as i walked in tell me what he was going to

say. let me comment on the mosque situation -- you still have more two go? >> i have two more sentences. what can we do to assist you in the accomplishment of getting the united states back to basics and accountability? i think you explained a little bit of that. god speed and thank you. [applause] >> glad you're not my opponent. [laughter] >> let's talk about the mosque a little bit. we obviously in our founding fathers, we believe in religious tolerance, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, which includes freedom not to have a religion if you choose to do that. so there's no question that the

people of the muslim faith have a right to build mosques in the united states and practice their religion. rg -- having said that, they don't have to do it where we had a huge tragedy where radical islamic terrorists attacked the united states and killed over 3,000 americans and people of all faiths and different nationalities. i know that the new york city zoning board had a tough vote on this and i think it passed by one vote, 215-214, something like that. but i would hope that the leaders of new york city and new york state could go to the islamic community and ask them to relocate that mosque somewhere else. i do not think it should be built where they are planning to build it because it is an afront to people who lost loved ones

and again that was an attack on the united states of america. and so we can protect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, but we would hope that the imam would use judgment that is tolerant of these feelings of some of the people that lost their loved ones there. i oppose that mosque not being built anywhere, but being built where they are trying to build it. and on the other issues, what can you do to help me is do as much as you can to help yourself and your family so you need less help from the federal government. i would encourage everybody, if you take the time to come to the town hall meeting, you are already registered to vote. in texas, you can register up to 30 days before the election. get register to vote, pick candidates that you believe in. turn your friends and neighbors out to vote for those candidates

and obviously if you choose to vote for joe barton for congress, i'm not going to be disappointed. [laughter] >> just participate in the democratic process anyway. next question. yes, sir. >> i have been to a couple of your things before. i just got a couple of short questions to ask you. >> when they smile like that, you get a little worried. [laughter] >> first question deals with this thing, if you come back to congress and say the republicans have the majority or say they just have maybe a one-vote majority and they couldn't repeal the law, could they not

vote for nonfunding of it, which would in a sense do the same thing as repealing it? that's the first question. the second question deals with the border. now everybody in the news, all these so-called experts, generals, colonels, whatever, you know, one thing they don't seem to catch, they want to send some national guardsmen down there to watch the people come across the border. i'm a vietnam veteran and i hope to god we don't do here what we did there, but you cannot -- it has never been possible -- you cannot set up a barrier to keep people from coming into a country or anywhere unless you have fire covering it. you must have have a responsive force that will come in with

force and knock them out. you cannot do it. [applause] >> it was proved everywhere. a fixed defense will not stop. it will only challenge an enemy and not stop them. now, why isn't someone saying something like that in the congress? because what i'm saying is basic 101 defense tactics in the military. thank you. >> let's take one at a time here. in the health care law, obviously the more votes you have, the easier it is to change it, repeal it or whatever. i don't think in the next congress, regardless -- i mean hopefully, we have a republican majority. but even if we don't, there will be a lot of democrats who will vote to change it because they

have come out of a close election. 60% of the american people disapprove of that law. the more you get into it, the worse it's going to get. so we should be able to -- i don't think we'll repeal everything, but we will be able to repeal a lot of it and change it and fix the stuff that needs to be fixed. the president -- we have to pass the same bill in the house and senate and the president has to sign it. you would expect the president to be reluctant to sign a pure repeal bill because he was for this and still is. an alternative is to not fund implementation. that would be -- the decision would be made by speaker boehner and our majority leader, it could be mr. cantor or mr. pence, in conjunction with the senate republican leadership.

my guess is, again, don't count your elections before they happen, but if we were in the majority and we didn't feel we had the votes for a straight repeal, that is something they would look at. it is certain within the rules and has been done before on both sides of the aisle. on the border situation, i support barriers along the border and i had voted for those fences and barriers and all of that. but we're not trying to build for lack of a better term, a berlin roll or what rommel was doing along the french coast. you are correct, when you build a barrier, you are trying to stop them temporarily and give them an opportunity to get personnel there. some of the people coming into this country are really bad

people, the drug dealers, terrorists, a lot of them just don't have a job in mexico or wherever and think they can get a job here. i don't see them as a military threat. i don't see a reason to have an armed military to decide they can shoot. you can certainly detain them and incart them and send them back to their home country as soon as possible. i have supported expanding the border patrol. i do support the military assisting the border patrol and local law enforcement. i am not ready to say i want an armed, aggressive military presence along the length of the border with orders to -- and you didn't say this, to shoot to kill on sight or anything like that. we should be able to control our

own borders without resorting to that type of thing. it would help if the president and his cabinet secretaries that have that responsibility would tell the federal officials down there to enforce the law instead of filing suits against the state of arizona, who is trying to enforce the law. that is a little bit unusual in american history. >> tell me then, how if you don't have armed forces, be it police, military, whatever, if you do not have this to cover the approaches as they come through, it will be like every night on tv, you see 100 people coming across the border and no one's there. >> i have been to the border obviously several times. i have not visited in the last year or two, but as we have got the barrier devices in place

where they make sense, we are doing a lot better about retaining and things of this sort. if we could ever get the economic situations balanced, i think that the illegal immigration issue is a solveable issue. the much more difficult issue right now is the drug wars going on down in mexico. there is a real war. there were 300 deaths in laredo a couple of months ago. the drug cartels were so strong they did take what is shown on the nightly news and not put in the newspapers. i commend the president of mexico for really trying to stop the drug cartels. and if there's one thing that we probably should be doing more, it would be assisting the mexican officials in combating

the drug trade along the border. >> the drug trade isn't going to be stopped by a wall there. it is going to be stopped because someone steps up and stops -- i don't say you have to shoot them, but you have to have the common sense to go out and catch them if you see them on a camera and coming across and if you do that a couple of times -- >> i have no disagreement that we need more personnel on the border and when we see people that are coming into the country illegally, we need to stop them, detain them and depending on what the situation is, immediately remove them back to their home country or whatever. i have no argument with you on that. the veteran back here.

>> you passed the budget for the v.a. you all were heading home and you all catching a flight and i was catching the flight after you. >> you have a better memory. >> i was in the wheelchair and i was the veteran wearing t-shirt that had the congressional medal of honor on it. >> were you -- >> the association had taken a bunch of us from the hospital and threw a big bank quiet for us. but my question is there are veterans out here now, viet nam veterans that are waiting for their disabilities that can't work and i think the v.a. is taking their time on giving them their disabilities that they are

pretty much being put out of their houses because they can't work and their houses are being foreclosed on. you know, we need to do something about that. and the other is on the part where changing something to where the biggest force that we have overseas now are reserves, they're not the active duty, but the reserves and we need to see about changing the bill for the compensation that the reserves get because we are working from the cran war era instead -- korean war era. i have 25 -- i had 25 years in and all i'm compensated with is what disability i get from the v.a. i don't get nothing from my service to this country that i have done until after i'm 60.

>> on the first issue, how difficult it is to get disability, we changed the disability rules -- i don't know, 10 or 15 years ago, because there was a lot of fraud and a lot of people on disability that didn't deserve it and we made it much more restrictive and we went too far. so now, even when you are absolutely, totally, eligible, qualified, it does take too long. >> i know one veteran who applied for disability, and he was stationed in thailand at one of the bases where they stored agent orange. guess what? if it's not recognized by the government, he doesn't get it. >> you have a valid point. the current evaluation system

for disability is too long, too complicated and it's almost an automatic first time you are apply, rejected, second time you are rejected and finally the third time in a lot of cases, you get qualified. so i think that's something that needs to be looked at and i would think that would be an issue that the republicans and the democrats in the next congress could work together on. i don't think that would be a partisan issue because if you have served your country and been disabled and truly entitled to disability, it shouldn't take an act of congress to get it for you. so you're right on that. >> i have one more question. you said about teaching them over in afghanistan how to farm and stuff like that. now why are we teaching them to

raise pigs? >> this was the colonel of kentucky national guard said the afghans were interested in. we didn't go out and look at a pig farm. [laughter] >> that's what he told us that is something they wanted us to help them with. a lot of the country is muslim, but there is a christian community in afghanistan and there is some buddhists and there are several religions, not just all islamic religion there. but we thank you for your service and thank you for coming. let's go to the young man in the tie and then this gentleman and young man back there in the golf shirt. >> my question has something very close to what this gentleman said about the border. one of the techniques that we're using in iraq and afghanistan to

guard their borders that we are unable to even get closer to along our southern border. >> i'm not following. >> we are guarding borders all over the world tonight, aren't we? they have the borders secured so we know who is coming in and out. >> straight answer is, i hate to use the words i don't know, but i would think in iraq, for example, that the iraqi are guarding the border and we may be assisting them on an as-needed basis. >> the united states is in charge over there and we are directing them. my question is, we have to be very good at protecting these borders for the safety of our military. these must be rather harsh tactics to keep people that would cut all of our throats in this room if they could to keep

them out. and if we are able to use those tactics over there, what is stopping us from doing it in our own country. why aren't we using the same ones here? >> we aren't in a military confrontation by the governments of mexico and canada. the two couvent tries on our border are allies and friends. >> our allies are making cartoons that they are making cartoons showing how to sneak in illegally. >> they are our allies. you got -- let's take the mexican border. you have three big problems. you have an economic disparityy between mexico and the united states. and you have people wanting to come into the united states

illegally for economic reasons. those folks, while in large numbers cor pressure our social welfare system, they're not a threat militarily. the drug cartel is a threat no matter how you cut it and the terrorists are a threat. so two of the groups are military threats or national security threats. the larger number, though, are not a threat in that sense and so we can use economic cooperation over time -- >> i have to disagree. they are taking away jobs, and driving down wages and bankrupted hospitals and our school systems are forced to educate children who are illegally. it is shaking the foundations of our country. >> you aren't going to use a military tactic on that group. you can use barriers the armed

forces in a secondary role to assist civilian law enforcement. >> how does that work? how do you -- how does the military assist civilian law enforcement unless they have a gun in their hands with bullets in the gun? i mean, force ultimately is the fear of force or the application of force is the ultimate to stop someone coming from across the country. are you saying the military could help the civilian law enforcement on the american side to keep illegal aliens, whether terrorists, drugs or whatever? >> i don't have a problem supporting the governor of texas if he asked the president of the united states to send federal troops to make it a mission of

it, the national guard to assist border patrol and sheriff's department and local police forces, homeland security on the u.s.-mexican border. but i don't want to put the second armored division at fort hood texas on full combat alert on the u.s.-american border. >> how many sexual assaults and murders happen every day from illegal mexicans, do you know? >> i don't have that at the top of my fingertips. >> any idea? >> i wouldn't hazard a guess. larger than zero, less than a million. you apparently know. >> i'm asking you, because you are -- >> i'm not an expert -- >> something you could look up and get back to us.

it might be high enough you want to put the 2nd armored division. >> let's do a poll, how many of you want to take our armored divisions from fort hood and put it on the u.s.-mexican border. three people. >> it's similar to a police s.w.a.t. team. very similar. all you have to do is set up a few swat teams down in the major areas where the big things come through where they come through and have a s.w.a.t. team ready when the cameras, when they catch them coming across the border. >> that's a different deal. look, we have military equipment, helicopters, surveillance, drones, all kinds of technology the military has that the local sheriff's

departments isn't go to go have, local border patrol and i don't have any problem using some of our radar surveillance, airplanes. >> would you be oppose todd using military soldiers for going in to literally hand-in-hand work with the police, carry their guns and go in. >> i believe in civilian control. and i don't want to militarize the border between u.s. and mexico and u.s. and canada. [applause] >> when you are put them with the second armor division. >> those were your words. whatever force is necessary to protect our citizens and our children. >> i stated my position three different ways, three different times you have to do what's in

the best interest of the united states of america and it is in the best interest to control our borders on your basic point, you are exactly right, but we are a nation of law and rule and we do have friendly relations with both mexico and canada. this is not a situation like iraq and iran or north korea, south cree, -- korea. i'm not saying the current situation is acceptable but i'm not saying we go totally the other way. there should be some -- >> this gentleman in the golf shirt and i'll go to you, sir. >> i'm going to change the subject a little bit. when congress passes bills like your health plan and social

security and other plans like that that are supposedly for the good of the people, why does congress always exempt themselves out? >> we don't? >> you don't? >> in this case, we certainly don't. you can't read it from back there, but right up heir, congressional members and personal mandate only exchange coverage. so we are smack dab in the middle of this if it's implemented. now, there are some cases when i hire someone to work on my congressional staff, they're my representative if i'm not here. ive the right to ask them political questions because i'm elected politically. that's in a normal employment situation. you wouldn't ask are you democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, but i get to ask those kinds of questions,

because they are going to represent me and if someone calls in to my office and i have hired someone who is a radical leftist liberal, it's going to be kind of tough. so there are some things -- when i speak on the floor of the house, i'm protected by the constitution, my speech is protected. so there are some things that it makes sense to exempt the congress, but you're right. we pass a law on you, we should be subject to the same laws. >> is that so you can understand some of our pain? >> i assure you when i go heem tonight, i have laund -- home tonight, i have laundry to watch. my wife is going to the beach this weekend, if i want something to eat, i have to go to the grocery store and buy it. i need a hair cut. i feel your pain just like you

feel your pain every day. >> in 2010, there was nol cola for social security members or -- >> pay raise. >> we didn't get one. and the reason that social security and the others didn't was because the inflation rate was down so it didn't trigger that. >> why didn't you get a pay raise? didn't congress try to get one? >> no. >> thank you for your time tonight. i appreciate it. i have three girls that i'm trying to raise and trying to be self-reliable, educate themselves and improve their lives and depend on themselves and their family and i think what you are saying is, there is

a lot of a lack of common sense right now in government and our country in terms of when we talk about adding more taxes. sir, i don't need any more taxes. we are spending. i see people spending like crazy and i had to cut back on spending and cut out the credit cards and so forth. common-sense approaches and immigration and all these things. we see that our government is not working for us, but against us. i like what you were saying earlier about self-reliance. i would like to see the republican party push is, hey, we want to encourage you, we want less government and the way to encourage that is to be self-reliant, take care of yourself financially, health and your family and that could bring government costs down. >> no argument from me.

>> back to basicss. >> let's be the last one. because i have to go to arlington. >> we are going to build a community center. the community center -- we did an $8 million bond issue for that. we know how much that's going to cost us eventually. if we would have been given that money, $8 million by the federal government, how much would that really cost? how much would that $8 million cost? >> i can give you a quick approximation. i appreciate the town hall meeting but the single-issue people talking for 10 or 15 minutes. >> i try to call as many people as i can. you made an effort to get here. you are entitled to your

communications with me. sometimes i get a little argumentative and i probably shouldn't, but i think everybody has behaved very well. let me comment on what he just said. your basic point is, if we got a federal grant for your community center, that would be money that would be borrowed and if under the current situation, it would never be repaid, so the cost would be infinity because we would keep paying interest on that money that was borrowed and we can't do that anymore and that's what he is talking about. it is really tough to be in a representative democracy because you get elected wanting to help people, just like the gentleman who is a veteran. he's got an issue with veterans'

disbuilt. he needs help and get his bodies who don't qualify, he needs to change the rules so they get qualified for a disability benefit. 95% of the meetings i have are people in groups, both governmental groups and private sector that want the government to do something that costs money. you very rarely have somebody come up and say, cut this program. we don't need the funds for the highway or the water project or whatever it is. if you have a balanced budget or a growing economy and so you have a federal resource base that is there, it's easy to say yes because the money's there. but right now, the money's not there. so i think the federal government ought to be like your family or the city of crowley. if you don't have the money, you

don't spend it. you drive that car another two years. the second child in the family gets the hand-me-downs from the older ones. i was the older one but i had a cousin older than me and he was an only child and his mother dressed him well. he stopped growing and i didn't. so i didn't get any more because he was taller and bigger than he is. you were with me yesterday in mansfield. i'm going to give you two more minutes because the c-span cameras were here. >> i don't care. i say it like it is.

i'm asking a question on the immigration issue. >> you are talking to me. whatever you try to do, because what we have now is the federal government trying to undermine local law and not to enforce the law, ok. and this issue has been going on for so long, the issue is economic, whatever problem they have across the border, we cannot solve that problem for them. corruption, this and that. only way you can solve that berlin wall. why haven't been trying to do this? 30 years, 40 years ongoing and put money into a system, what for? and we have a federal government who undermines a lot of things, undermines the u.s. constitution.

it [beep] me off. >> we have gone this whole meeting. that's your two minutes. let me say it, i'm happy everybody is here. i'm an optimist by nature. we have big problems and they aren't going to be solved easily. and you folks have done a great job of highlighting a lot of the big problems. but we're different than any other nation on earth in that we try to work together to resolve these problems in a consensus fashion. and that's messy. when you watch the floor of the house and you see us yelling and screaming at each other and all that, that's diversity. now, we got an election coming up in november. there are real choices. there are real differences between the two political parties. on some of these issues that you

raised and immigration is one of them, it ain't going to be solved just by the republicans or the democrats. we have got to decide where that middle ground is to get that one solved. on the tax issue, i think that's another one. we've got to come together. the one thing that i think that republicans have an advantage on is that we are more willing to cut spending. i can't conceive of an effort that you are going to be better off by raising taxes. i can't conceive of it when spending has gone up as much as it has gone up in the last two, three years. there are programs that we have doubled in the last two to three years and we don't have a better program because of that.

so i want to thank the city of crowley for coming out. thank our friends at c-span for deciding this is one of the town halls they wanted to cover. again, write your question down if you didn't get to ask it in person. if you've got a great idea, americaspeakingout.com. send it to us and we'll look at it and might send it on the floor of the house. god bless you, god bless texas and god bless the united states of america. >> tuesday night at 8:00 p.m., president obama will give an oval office speech discussing the troop withdrawal from iraq and shift of fobaling cuss to the war -- focus to the war in afghanistan. begins tuesday night at 8:00

p.m. eastern. >> i signed a disaster declaration for the state of louisiana and this morning, i signed a disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> as the gulf coast marks the 5th anniversary of hurricane katrina, look back at how the federal government responded to the crisis, online at the c-span video library, all free. it's washington your way. >> on the 5th anniversary of hurricane katrina, we look at what has happened since the storm in the affected region. this is from "washington journal." >> our focus is on new orleans and the greater gulf coast region which struck at 8:00 local time in new orleans and this past week we covered an event. event looking back at the media coverage of hurricane katrina. one of the participants?

shepherd smith of the fox news channel. >> the government said, you go here and you get help. they did not get help. there is a motion in the story. you try not to be emotional yourself. i am not one that goes there. when you come to the stark reality that you are the information stream between the people who are dying and the people who can be saved, it takes on a new level of importance. over there, there is food and water, but you cannot go from there to there. i think the government will not allow you to do it. i want to get some perspective here -- that is all the prospective you need. government is here to save those people and it should have. it is not a republic or -- republican or democrat thing. is about success and failure and

hurricane katrina is a story of great american failure. i feel like we have documented it better -- if we had, the government would have been forced to act and we did not succeed. that is a powerful thing. host: with more on the region, we are joined by allison plyer, the co-deputy director of the greater new orleans community data center. thank you for being with us. you keep track of a lot of statistics over the last five years. what is the most interesting or compelling? guest: what surprises people the most is that katrina cost about $135 billion in damages, and that is six times rger than the next largest disaster. 9/11 cost $20 billion in damage. when you think about the scale

of it, i was completely unprecedented. all the other statistics cannot really be surprising because there is nothing to compare them to. host: one of the statistics is in the lower ninth ward. there was a story in "washington journal" this past week about how your mayor is trying to slowly removemany of the homes that were damaged as a result of the hurricane and the flooding. this is an area of the city that had an estimated 30,000 residents. now is down to 6000. guest: the lord ninth ward has maybe 24% of the households -- theord high court has made 24 percent of the high salt -- the lower ninth war has maybe 24 percent of the households than it did before.

it is harder to rebuild. host: does that explain one of the five-year anniversary pieces in the "washington post" and he has this conclusion. the result, advocates say is uneven recovery with people to have rebuilt their lives in the five years since this horrific storms. guest: what really explains that difference and those are accurate observations is that from the very first year, the insurance companies didn't pay anyone. and so even folks who were insured couldn't start to rebuild unless they had money in the bank. can you imagine having $100,000

in your bank that you could use to start rebuilding. that is a very small group of our citizens in new orleans, any city. it was the wealthier folks who were able to rebuild their homes. in the second year, the insurance companies started to pay but some folks were underinsured and some didn't know their homes were in flood zones. so the federal program to supply homeowners. maybe you got something less than $50,000 but there is not a house in the city that could be rebuilt with $50,000. you needed well over $1,000, the lower income neighborhoods had