you have received $46 million? is that correct? >> $46.2 million. >> you have recovered $8.2 million? >> at this point in time, yes. >> can you understand as an auditor, as a look at these numbers, it is hard to reconcile that a lack of funding has been your problem? >> the recovery that we have thus far experienced are small, but the full measure of the outcome our forthcoming numbers will be much larger than the numbers we submitted in their role -- the rollout of work that federal employees have done in general, for 2010. >> let's talk about contracting.

one of the things that is very important is how audit agency's contract, because your job is to oversee contract. and, your job is to determine if there are contracts that are not needed. -- not needed, put to better use, and out of the $46 million a you have received, how much money are you spending just to prepare reports for congress? >> that contract, senator, started out at $3.7 million, at a time when we had the people to do the very specific type of work for which we have contracted to help us. the intent of that arrangement was to facilitate the gaps in our own personnel, and the skill sets that were needed at that point in time, and over a

period of time, we would reduce that contract, as we were able to bring that level of talent aboard in sigar. >> ok. >> and we are doing that, senator. >> you spent 3.7 million on the base, and 3.7 million this year. their only function is to produce reports to congress, correct? >> they provide also, assistance to us in the data-based management. that is one aspect. they principally assist sigar in putting together the reports that we submit, which is a very detailed report, a very important report, and we feel that the extent to which we have gone to ensure the report is put together correctly and is presentable to this congress is come as no with the money we

have to invest -- commiserate with the money we have invested. >> just to clarify this, because i will tell you candidly -- i do not want to lay out my fellow members of congress here, but an investment of that kind of money in their report to congress, when there is the kind of audit work that is to be done, and you are using a lack of funding as a rationale for more -- for why more work has not been done, and why it has taken on its so long to be put -- produced in a manner commensurate with the size of your agency, let's be clear, the contract total is $6.2 million, and the total amount of funding is 10 million to four that $10 million, we have gotten when the $49 million. meanwhile, with this, all we have gone is a shiny report, and pretty pictures from members of congress, most of which will never see it.

to understand why that causes pause about whether that is a strong leadership decision, general fields? >> we have been told they appreciate the report that we provide for them. similarly, the federal community elsewhere has told us that they appreciate the detail and the correctness of the report that we produce. >> let's talk about a contract with joseph smits. you have an audit, it is completed, and it is not good. in fact, it will only the second time in 50 peer reviews, you have been recommended to lose your law enforcement capabilities, in an arena where desperately needed law enforcement capability is absolutely essential. you have had this audit, and after the audit is done, you hire someone, it is my understanding, to help you monitor compliance with the audit recommendations. is that a fair characterization of the year contract was

supposed to represent? >> that is a fairly fair characterization, senator, but we hired this independent monitor, commensurate with a plan of action and milestones that i put in place, in response to the results, in order to move sigar quickly along to putting in place a corrective action that has been identified for us. i set that date at the 30th of september for this year. we are a better organization, center, because we had this external agency to come in, and provide this particular expertise. >> this is a no-bid contract. >> it was a sole-source contractor >> that is no-bid, correct? >> that is correct.

>> what you said was you needed the immediate establishment of an independent monitor to independently validate and modify response in response to issues contained in a letter of 2010 to the attorney general of the united states. is that correct? that is the document -- that is the information in the document for the justification and approval of a no-bid contract. >> center, we wanted to quickly correct the areas pointed out by the peer review. we did not wish to lose, or put in jeopardy any further, the authorities for criminal investigations that have been provided to me, by way of the department of justice. we felt that this entity would provide that independent look at us, and we felt that would help mitigate any concerns that this

congress, and the oversight on capitol hill of sigar might have, as well as to reassure anyone else who might be interested. >> isn't there an independent monitor of whether you've complied with the audit now? >> repeat the question, senator terry >> are they looking now, to see if you have complied, are they not the independent body you are looking for to see if you have, in fact, correct the deficiencies? >> they are looking at the audit peace, but the investigation pea's has yet to get under way, and no less, i have made requests that they come back in. >> ok. so, army contract in come and, who rewarded the contract on behalf of sigar, said there was an one-person that was available and qualified. did you reach out to any other

qualified? >> not at that time. >> did you ask for suggestions? >> no, we did not. >> did you talk to them up using mr. schmidt? >> did you talk to mr. more, and his team of auditors to look it your process and quality control in criminal investigations, did you discuss hiring mr. schmidt with them? >> no, i did not. someone may have done so on my behalf, but i did not personally. >> when my staff spoke with your staff in september, they said they had expected mr. schmidt would be entering into a subcontractor with the former director of the fbi who also works with mr. schmidt and the independent monitoring team of daimler. sigar officials say they

believed that mr. fried would be involved in theutreach to attorney general holder. >> that is not necessarily my understanding, and i cannot account for what folks may have communicated to your staff or to anyone else. my intent was to bring aboard an independent entity to provide the oversight of the plan of action that we were putting in place to move this effort quickly along, so that we could come in compliance with the department of justice regulations. >> did you expect that mr. fried would be working on this contract? >> i did come at the onset. yes, ma'am. i had confidence. >> what was his function as it related to what you expected him to do? reach out to general holder? >> no, ma'am. i did not expect anyone to reach

out, per say. i expected the oversight being provided by this entity to help sigar, and the inspector general correct the issues that had been pointed out. >> well, your staff said to us that he would be intimately involved in an outreach to general holder. you understand what this looks like, do you not? >> i would ask the senator explains what you are referring to. >> it looks like you found someone who could get to the was free, get to attorney general holder, and make sure that you did not lose your ability to exercise law enforcement functions. him look like you were trying to hire someone to help influence the attorney general of the united states, as opposed to the fixing the problem, and then having the same independent audit group come back and certify that you fixed the problem. >> center, i, as inspector

general, had confidence in mr. free, because he is a former director of the fbi, because he is a former judge, and because, as i learned along the way, mr. schmidt was associated with his firm. i had confidence because of mr. free's contribution already to this gernment, and also mr. schmidt's contribution to the government in a role i was playing at that time. that was my line of thinking. it had nothing to do, senator, with any other potential influence in reference to the attorney general. i wanted to correct the issues. that had been pointed out to me, and that was my only objective. >> it is my understanding that -- this contract was

worth $100 million? >> -- $100,000? >> no, it was worth $95,000. >> how many days bid mr. schmidt work on this? >> he was with sigar for approximately two months. >> 60 days, and he got $95,000? >> that is correct. >> about $45,000 a month. >> we follow the rules and engaging in this contract. we utilize the contract center of excellence that other entities use, and $95,000 was the fair market value for the specific worked that we were requesting. -- specific work that we were

requesting. >> with all due respect, in general, i have to tell you the truth. you are supposed to be finding ways to save the american taxpayers' dollars, and please, i do not think it is a good idea to say it was fair market value to pay somebody $45,000 a month to try to fix a problem in your investigations unit to the satisfaction of the attorney general. is it not true that mr. moore is going to complete the work in just a few days, and it is not going to cost anything in terms of determining whether or not you have the proper procedures in place to do law enforcement work as a special inspector general of afghanistan? >> center, i believe that the decision i made at that point in time was a good decision. i did not anticipate all of the scrutiny that this particular initiative has received since

that decision. had i had an opportunity, or if i had an opportunity to do it all over again, i probably would have made a different decision. >> that is goodness. that is good news, general. senator brown? >> thank you. i just have a couple of questions. in fiscal year 2011, you are slated to get $16.2 billion. if approved, how will the money be tracked, and how will it be measured, and what expected return on the investment would you expect the taxpayer to get? >> senator, we would expect the full measure of the $16.2 billion, which is primarily designed for training and equipping of the afghan security force -- we expected the full measure of the taxpayer investment in terms of a return will be achieved. to that end, we have passed for

additional -- we have asked for additional funding so we can increase the numbers and our staff, and provide the coverage and oversight necessary to ensure the american taxpayer that that money is completely used for the purposes for which it was made available. >> when you say full measure, what does that mean in layman's terms, it said quebec's full measure? >> i know there is some military in there. i get it. what does that mean exactly? >> full measure means that the $16.2 billion was requested for specific initiatives associated with the stand up of the afghan security forces. the full measure means that at $16.2 billion would be used for that purpose without waste, fraud, and abuse. >> if i'm reading this correctly, -- how much are you

going to spend in personnel compensation? you have any idea? >> personnel compensation, not unlike the rest of the federal community, is high, and our personnel compensation is, i believe, commiserate with my sigar counterpart, our staff who work in afghanistan by way of a compensation package approved by this congress. they receive 70% in addition to regular pay for danger pay, and location pay. we have to pay that, senator. sigar is an independent agency. i must pay full -- as we go, for everything we receive, personnel, and otherwise. the cost is very high. we are also a temporary organization. when we bring people aboard, they know that.

we bring people aboard for 13 months. it is not like a standing and statutory federal agency. we are also competing in a market where 70 other inspectors are looking for auditors and investigators, and we have to compete in that regard with their compensation in order to bring aboard the level of talent we need. i wish it were cheaper. i certainly do. >> let me finish this, and we will move on to the next panel. i just want you to follow the money. find out where the money is going. zero yen on the taliban issue -- why and how they are getting any of all money, number one. i want to know if there are any bribes and payoffs going on. if there are people that are doing that, we do to stop it, and plug that leak? i understand, if it were not for

you telling me, i would have overlooked the fact that you were appointed, and there was a transitional period. i get that. now, that you have done all of the election, and all of the policy stuff, i think the message for me and senator mccaskill and the folks that did your independent audit -- and i commend you for reaching out and doing that -- you seriously wanted to give guidance, because maybe it was a new, but they have given you the guidance. i think we are giving you guidance. please, protect our money. find a way to bring that number of, so we can feel confident that the millions we are giving you, we're getting millions in return. at least make it a wash. as my only message. i've nothing further. thank you. >> let me clarify a couple of things.

louis free, never was it in gaged or declined to dissipate in any way in this contract, correct? >> that is correct, senator, as far as i know. what assistance he may have given mr. schmidt, which i am not aware of, i am not able to comment on that. >> i have not gone into any of the issues surrounding mr. schmidt and his previous tenure at the department of defense, but were you aware at the time that you hired him that there had been some controversy regarding his personal -- previous tenure? >> i was completely unaware. >> that would end a that that you might have done, maybe a simple google church -- search. you could have been clear. >> senator, my initialed the initiative was to engage the group of which mr. schmidt, to

our understanding, was a part. >> so, now you have said that the reason for hiring him was to get to louis free. >> not necessarily, senator. the reason for hiring any of the entities was to help bring the talent and expertise that we needed at that point in time to address the issues in sigar. >> i said why did you not affect him, and you said we were hiring him to get to less free. >> i did not say i was hiring anyone to get to louis free. >> why did you not vet mr. schmidt before you hired him? >> i had no cause to do so. these matters were being handled by way of my contract officer and by way of the cce. i did not have any reason to doubt the integrity and so forth

of mr. schmidt, and as i understand it, the issues of which he may have been accused during his tenure during -- as inspector general -- this is an affirmation i found out subsequent to the center having raised questions about my decision -- center having raised questions about my decision in hiring this contractor, but as i understand it, the issues that were brought up were not cooperated in the final analysis. >> you understand that the reason this has even come up was that in preparation for this hearing, we did basic, investigatory were, and we found that senator grassley had a lot of questions about mr. schmidt when he was inspector general. i am not saying whether the senator was right or wrong, i am saying it is very troubling that you would not be aware of those questions before paying someone the amount of $450,000 a year to

do work for the federal government, general fields. that is what i am getting at. this audit agency is careful about who they hire at, and whether there is an appearance of a problem. i am not saying there is a problem, but the fact you did not know there could be one, is what i'm trying to bring to your attention. did mr. schmidt ever go to afghanistan? >> not under the contract involving sigar, to my knowledge. >> the pay, that you claim is market value, the $45,000 on month, did not require any high risk and mr. schmidt's part, other than calling lists free's office. >> potentially, correct, as far as i know, senator. let me say that mr. schmidt is a registered government contractor, as far as i

understand. >> i am understand, in general, but the point i am trying to make his that your job is to oversee contract in. your job is to set the gold standard, so you do a sole- source contract, no bid, you immediately hire someone, and clearly there was not vet don to bring to your attention that there were questions you need to ask him about his previous tenure. that is the point i am making. had you ever done, or work with an audit agency before you were given this job? have you ever done and the audit work, or been around any auditors when you were -- for your given this job? >> yes, senator, i have been. >> tell me what capacity you had worked with auditors prior to taking this job. >> i worked with auditors in

conjunction with my support to the iraq management and reconstruction office. this was an indirect work associated with reconstruction and support of iraq. >> what audit agency's did you work with? >> i did not specifically work with the audit agency, per say, but with the chief of staff, my work covered multiple dimensions of reconstruction in iraq. prior to that, senator, i served as the inspector general for a united states central command. i did that work for two years. that work involves some degree of oversight, involving the audit-type work, but not necessarily the professional potters by which sigar is

currently characterize. >> -- auditors by which sigar is currently characterize. >> there is a vast difference between inspector general's in the active military and the government. in the active military -- military, their report to the commander. they have no duty to report to the public, congress, or to perform an independent function in terms of monitoring taxpayer dollars, correct? >> those inspectors general are a started out by the basic intent, no less, by the inspector general act of 1978, by which i come another federal inspectors general, are guided as well, senator. >> i was shocked, when i went to iraq, and i was sitting with inspectors generals, and i did not realize we had two varieties that were vastly different in the federal government. i wish they were not called the same thing.

the military and for me they had the name first. it got a little tricky. these are not the same functions. they do not do the same work. the first thing you do, if you had an audit agency is do a risk assessment, and a tear analysis as to why tear is the top tier of work you should do, where the highest risk is, then you go down, and do your audit plan, determining how much resources you have, and how you could get to the most risk. at what point in time was a risk assessment completed at sigar? >> i will go back, senator, to what i said earlier. we conducted the risk assessment, which was published in our two thousand eight report to congress. that risk assessment was made up of several elements. it may not look like a risk

assessment as the senator might -- >> it is not yellow book? >> is not a yellow book assessment, per say, but it would certainly contain the elements relevant to any risk assessment when it comes to the oversight of money. >> the auditors tell you that was specific -- sufficient? >> i have no auditors at that time because we completed that assessment in conjunction with our october report to congress before i was privileged to hire my first auditor. >> you are saying you performed what you would consider professional risk assessment of the major responsibility in terms of audit function without any auditors? >> i performed that assessment, center, with intelligent folks, and i feel that -- i do not feel

this is necessarily rocket science in order to determine what needs to be done, center. >> i need to tell you the truth. once again, i do not mean to be cruel. i do not mean to. this is not fun for me, either. it is very uncomfortable to say that i do not think you are the right person -- person for this job, general fields, but i do not think you are the right person for this job. [applause] >> i'm sorry, that is inappropriate. please leave the room. [unintelligible] >> please. please. the risk assessment, the reasons why you have the findings from peer review was because you fell short of the professional standards that are demanded in the world of auditing.

i am not stand the people that work for you were not intelligent, or you are not intelligent, whether you are not a hero, sir. i am saying this is too important a government function to not have the very highest level of experience, qualifications, and expertise, leading this kind of audit agency. i have no other questions for you. we will keep this record (if there is anything i have said in this hearing that you believe is unfair, any information you want to bring to our attention, will keep the record open, and i will assure you i will look at all the with the eye of an auditor, examined it, and make sure that our final record of this hearing is fair and balanced. we are happy to include anything else you would like to include. i thank you very much for all of your service to america. >> madam chair, if i may. thank you, in general, and i want to thank you for your

service as well. i appreciate your service as well. >> thank you, senators. >> we will not take the third panel. -- we will now take the third panel. caller: >> we will be live in about a half-hour with a discussion of the midterm election and how it has changed politics there the federalist society is holding its national lawyers convention. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we will talk about tea party is and the constitution. mr. lee is one of 16 new senators. this weekend, house democratic with james cliburn on how democrats view their role in the one in the 12th congress, which begins in january. here is a look. >> i have been out there

campaigning with him, and when i saw their attitudes, i was extremely heartened by -- remember, some of them barely won, but a lot of our people barely lost. we have done the calculations. to lend it 50,000 votes in total -- somebody might lose 300 votes here, " hundred votes here. if you add it all up, it comes to less than 250000 votes that we lost the house by. a lot of these people will stay on the field, and i guarantee you that if we can speed up this recovery, from 25 miles an hour, to 55 miles an hour, and we keep going in the private sector, as we have been going, we will have the wind at our backs two years from now, and i can tell you a lot of these people will be back. >> rematches city is what we are

looking for part >> absolutely, or country. >> you will see a lot of these narrowly-defeated democrats run again. >> i've talked to them, and they will be out there running again. >> representative james cliburn was a lot the was it to the new position of minority leader. you can see the full interview sunday, at 10:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m.. among the 94 new house members, a republican from south carolina. he defeated a 14-term incumbent. prior to joining congress, he was a lawyer, real-estate developer, restaurateur, and a member of the state senate. from south dakota, r-texas seat of four-term incumbent. she is a farmer, rancher, and a hunting lodge owner.

this morning, on "washington journal called kolff we spoke with the executive vice president of the center for american progress on some of the areas where the president can make changes. we will show that to you now. for american progress a think taeurpbg in washington which has been ledded by john -- head bed by john podesta. there is a paper you put out this week, the power of the president, recommendations to advance progressive change. it is being picked up in a lot of columns. it is essentially a message to the president to assert yourself. what are you saying? guest: so much of the conversation since the election has been predictions that sort of the government is going to come to a halt because we have a divided government and differences of view about so many issues that are going to be

debated in the congress and there is a lot of discussion that somehow legislative progress is going to be differ to make -- difficult to make. i hope those predictions may not prove to be accurate in talking about the congress. but our point was to say that government is not just about legislation. the president has enormous authority and responsibility to be able to operate as a chief executive of the federal government and we want to emphasize the ways he can help get things done, things that the public really needs and wants given the concerns they have with the economy and with american security. host: what specific enumerated or traditional actual powers does he have? what tools does he have? guest: the united states congress gives him the responsibility as the executive

to administer all of the agencies of the federal government, and every single one of those agencies from the department of commerce and small business administration, to the department of defense, have significant responsibilities. and in executing those authorities there are choices to be made every day and they can influence the way things get done. nobody can deny that president bush often faced a divided congress, yet he was able to, in the exercise of his executive authority, put a real stamp on the country and the way that he governed. and president obama has the same opportunity. host: let me ask about the call for partisanship. the front page of "u.s.a. today" search for civility grows in washington. you have been here a while.

what is your view on civility and partisanship? guest: i would guess we have a call for nonpartisanship or at least perhaps bipartisan ship. an effort to -- i think the public is really frustrated with it conversation. this was an election that people said let's -- we like the agenda of the republicans and we dislike the agenda of the president. they were expressing their deep frustration that there was fighting, there was bickering and rather than change the tone in washington nothing had cake -- nothing had changed. i think the responsibility now to control the house is going to put an onus on the house leadership to be able to not simply say here are the things we don't like but here are some things we do and create a real opportunity for the beginning of a dialogue and the president will likely be looking for

places where he can make progress and find common ground. host: for instance, because the economy is foremost on most everyone's mind, let's look at the suggestions you have put forward for presidential action on the economy. we put them on graphics for people but they include launching a new consumer tppb financial protection bureau which is part of the dodd frank legislation, accelerate implementation of small business jobs act, promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure. will you talk about how he can do those things and why they are important? guest: in each case those are places where the congress has either recently passed or has for a long time put authority on the books in the area of housing that the president has to begin -- has to implement. the housing legislation has been in the works for a long time. so, what we are suggesting is

the statutes don't answer all the questions about how you move forwa forward. there are major priorities in for the economy in figuring out how we can get lending to businesses so they can start to hire people. and what i think the public is saying is we want to see progress. so, if, for example, if the small business bill, those are authorities special extra access to credit for the next two years. it will take a very concerted effort to lift that up and draw the attention of businesses about the new opportunities they have in both under tax law and lending opportunities to get them taking advantage of the programs before the authorities expire. much of the president and white house senior staff time and attention the last two years was focused on the congress, but they have this great opportunity now to turn their attention to helping to implement these laws and make sure we get the full

benefit. similarly, as the new cfpd is being put in place, consumer financial protection bureau, the president could spend a lot of -- or the administration could spend a lot of time thinking how you stand up an operation, but he needs to talk at the same time about what that operation will do so the public sees that it is not just bureaucracy, it is change that effects their lives. host: before we go to calls looking through newspaper for an article i found it. this is from the "baltimore sun" today. from the tribune's washington bure bureau. dems plan counterattack. activists push white house and plot on strategy frustrated by president obama's weakness in battling republicans many leaders have become independently plotting their political recovery including whether to build a network of outside fund-raising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by republicans. george soros quoted in this i'm used to fighting losing battles

but i don't like losing without a fight. he saeid in a comment confirmed by his staff as a private call and private conversations at the meeting of democracy alliance an organization of democrats that provides funding to liberal groups. is there frustration with this white house? guest: i think there is, first of all, recognition that this white house got a lot done during the first two years on very big and important issues that have troubled the country and helped to bring us down. the recovery act, getting us away from the brink of financial collapse, healthcare reform long sought, and the dodd frank act are major accomplishments and there are other small ones. first, people recognize this was about as hard a job as you could have at the beginning of an administration with a new team and they got an amazing amount down. do people wish there had been

more had do people wish there was the capacity now to demonstrate that we are not going to be spending all our time and energy in conflict with people in the congress but we are going to work to show what we can get done? of course. but that is not necessarily a critique. that is a work plan for moving the country forward. host: there is a paragraph many diseffected democrats say the station needs to be more aggressive advocating positions to rally the party space and differentiate it from republicans. that sounds to be the opposite of what you just described. guest: one reason this report was written is there is this inevitable debate in the papers and among pundits about whether the president should rally his base or going to the center, should he be challenging the republicans or working with them. our sense is that that kind of debate is somewhat wasted

energy. the real question is how do we get things done. the president needs to show his capacity to run the country, to le lead, and he does that through leadership on the hill as one of many tools. there are many others. running the government and using its capacity to make lives better for people is what we are saying he should spend his time on. host: we want to go to phone calls e-mails and twitters. we are discussing center for american progress report the power of the president recommendations to advance progressive change it is available on their website and ours. it has been picked up by a number of progressives and liberal columnists. in the nation we have the headline use your executive authority, president obama and a similar theme this morning in eugene robinson's piece in the opinion page of the "washington post" the decider in chief. reference being this report and encouraging the president writing progressives are right

when they complain the white house must do a better job of making the case for its policies but the challenge goes well beyond communications. judging by wait they snubbed obama's invitations to break bread together republicans seem eager for gridlock. that may be the g.o.p.'s story line but obama can write a narrative of his own. he is the decider now. that is the reference to george w. bush's memoir on the market now. let's go to phone calls. we begin with a call from levitt town, pennsylvania, catherine, who is a democrat. caller: good morning. i just feel so sad because no matter what obama tries to put forth, the republicans have made a statement, they made a statement that they only want him in for one term. so, no matter what he does or tries to do, they are going to block it. and actually when they go to congress they are to take care

of all the people. guest: thank you so much. i find remarks that focus on the next election days after the last one to also be sad. i do thinkhat is not what the election result message was to the congress. but i also am not convinced t t that, and the whole point of the report is that those tactics to try to make sure that nothing gets done is not going to be what the public is lacking for. and -- looking for and i think that we are going to see a great deal of pressure on both parties to show that they have the capacity to help solve problems, not simply the ability to try to get in the way of the president's attempts to do so. host: anne, a republican from tennessee.

caller: i don't know when they decided that progressive was a better for social securityist, communists. george soros sits up there like a big evil octopus funding groups and if obama tries to push the country further in social inch he won't get two votes the next election. but that woman talking about the government needs to take care of us, that is a pa text state -- pathetic statement about where america is today. there was a spectacle in atlanta this summer they were fighting like dogs over a bone to get subsidized housing. american people are not enslaving themselves to this government and the last election spoke to that. we do not want to be taken care of. the people out here work and look around and see people on food stamps spending, wasting taxpayer dollars and most of them are making a mess out of their homes and kids are being fed by the boys and girls club, churches. the schools are even sending

back packs home. why are we giving them food stamps? they are not feeding their kids. it is disgusting what they have turned the american people into with these socialist, communist programs that people like this lady sitting here -- host: i will stop because you made your point. how about a response? guest: i think that the notion is that -- i think that the government exists to meet needs that people across the country have in common and can't meet on their own. but we need to do a better job of giving people confidence, like anne, that when the government does the things that only it can do, it does them well. an important part of it report and another report we leased the same day called the $400 billion opportunity, which was about how we can make sure the government spends less through the things that it buys through its

procurement powers, make sure it gets a better deal for the taxpayer on the things it has to do. the president has a great deal of ability to focus on running the government like a business, running the government so it gets a better rate of return and gets more done with less. and those sorts of things i hope will give people more confidence that on those things like defense, transportation, roads, utilities, that are so important as well as social safety net, we add values to the lives of everyone. host: back to the morocco papers, is -- morning papers is it headlines like this in the "washington post" obama democrats can't agree on plan for tax cuts, that encourages you to suggest that the president find a way forward other than legislation? guest: we are going to have to agree or at least get enough people to pass some kind of legislation. the president is clear and i don't think anyone in the republican party or democratic party want to see right now tax

cuts for the middle class expire. so, some way when this is done there will be tax cuts, i hope, continued for the vast majority of americans who right now are having a real struggle in the economy. i hope that it will not include tax cuts for the very wealthy but that will get worked out. our point is that that is only a small part of what the country needs to do right now. and we don't need to become so consumed with that debate that we forget about all of the other responsibilities of the executive branch. that is what we want to make sure is lifted up. host: next is park hill, oklahoma, good morning to our caller gary who is an independent. caller: good morning. once again, you are like fine wine. we are probably both about the same age but i have craters in

my face. two quick comments and one in-depth question. first off, to everyone, including those in other countries who have lost a son, child, husband in our war against these baby killing people, i'm a vietnam veteran and every time someone i read in the paper one of you kids have died fighting these people my heart goes out to you and i want to acknowledge and thank you for your sacrifice, not just to my country but to other citizens of the world who have gone into iraq and afghanistan with our kids. i sincerely mean that. two, i would like to address progress seufrs in a quick statement. i have always equated it with regulatory nazi inch and public -- naziism and public health terrorism by our own people and one of the post disgusting

things is how they used law and order country and turned our people who normally have been to serve and protect and turned them into a bunch of [inaudible] people extorting income out of taxpayers to support a bunch of college kids in the government and in special interests groups with college kids who won't go out and make money and provide jobs. host: gary, your question, please. you have lots of strong opinions but how about a question. caller: concerning immigration, i live right in indian country and this is another example of what happens when you have people who are in charge of things making statements concerning their support for illegals when in reality, say like you are working, the real working poor class blacks and whites and indians, their voices

are not heard at all. if you ought to hear how the indians here in indian country scream because of all the mexicans who are allowed across the border -- host: we understand your question. we will stop there. do you have a response for him? guest: i actually wanted to mention for a moment your comment about afghanistan. and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think this is a place where there is actually some in the topic we are here it to talk about today that speaks to that. the way that the administration manages through the ongoing obligations commitments that we have in those two countries is a place where i think the president has some choices that could work to help prevent more loss of life for american soldiers. we are suggesting we need to focus more of our attention on the diplomatic powers and a economic ability to strengthen the governance and local economies in those countries so we can make them self-sustain

and move out. so much attention is on military strategy and not the other tools we have to help strengthen those countries so we can bring our soldiers home. host: for that viewer even though you apologized because you are a vietnam vet someone took over to your language. jack hutton says how can you let a caller continue who uses the term camel jockey. you neat to call hate out. moving on to loganville, georgia. in is scott republican on the air. caller: i thought one of the problems the democrats had in the last session they wrote these huge bills, 4,000-page bills and leave so much of the law to be defined by the executive branch and bureaucr s bureaucrats. the congress ought to define what the law is and not leave it up to unelected people to write

law. the question is, what business does the government have inviting bankers and executives from general motors down to the white house and telling them how to run their business? that is not part of the government's job. guest: thank you. i think that the particular, if you are referring to yesterday's discussion about general motors, the federal government did make a significant investment in general motors and i think that the discussion the last two days has been to celebrate the fact that the company has been able to bring itself back to keep a lot of people employed in the areas not only in their own industry, their own company but many other parts of the industry who are suppliers and others. and they are now being able to

seek private capital and move on without government support. that was the discussion there. it is inevitable that when you run a country that the 535 members of congress are not going to reach agreement on every detailed aspect. it is inherent in our constitution that broad -- this authority is granted to the president. but he does it within the broader consent of the public and their approval. i actually think what the publish has been saying to the president lately is we would like to see things get done rather than the kind of constant debate and bickering. we spent too much of the last two years with a spotlight shined on the united states congress and less on getting problems solved on the big problems that people are facing in their lives. host: we will go back to a for instance on how your suggestion of executive authority might work. a head lane democrats struggling to make any headway.

on wednesday they wrote the senate majority leader announced he would push forward with the annual military policy bill that includes repeal of the policy that prohibits openly gay and lesbian people from serving. it was a direct challenge to john mccain of arizona who indicated he will try to block the measure as long as it contains the don't ask provision. guest: our hope is, and there are a number of republican senators that feel differently than john mccain does now. his views have evolved. the president has made clear, and the leadership of the military has made it clear that this policy does not advance military readiness.

they will study how best to transition, release a report next month, but then they need congress to help change the background law. they believe this in order to make those changes. i am hopeful congress will take those steps, but they may not. if they do not, the military will then have a report saying that our military razzing -- readiness and capacity is impaired by the loss of trained, qualified soldiers. if the president has the authority, for example, to not allow any person who alleges said someone is gay -- that evidence to be treated as credible evidence of that person's violation of the don't ask, don't tell policy. he can use that authority to mitigate the effects of this policy that are adverse to our national security. host: karen, a democrat.

caller: i have two questions any comment. how can congress justify not passing the bill to take away tax breaks from company that take jobs away from overseas. thearen't they addressing manipulating the currency and why isn't that in the forefront? that would create millions of jobs in the united states. i would like to say to the republican party, i am tired of you saying no to everything. guest: thank you, karen. let me pick up on your point about the economic climate the president faces. one recommendation in our report is the president's take up an unrelenting focus over the next two years on the the united

states' competitiveness. it is one of a wide array of policies that i would argue are important. it includes how we enforce our trade laws and how we -- what kind of higher education and training programs we have. make sure our workforce is ready to compete. it is important what kind of support we give to new technology so they can be the jobs of tomorrow. we suggest that concern is for most of the minds of many americans as they face an uncertain future for jobs and an uncertain future for their children. this is one place where we think the president could spend a good deal of his time. hopefully this will be a place where you could find the business community and the labor committee and republicans and democrats who would follow him in making a fight to help make

the united states better able to sell their products around the world. host: we heard this morning in the social media and talk radio and other places terms for the construct of government. people have used the term socialism. somebody even said nazism. "we live in a mix of socialism and capitalism." guest: i think we live in a capital society that has some common goods and needs and purposes that are served by government. this is a democratic government. it is not socialist government. there are enormous differences in how we govern ourselves. which is had a tremendous example of the government's being in the hands of the public, not in the hands of the

state. enormous contrast to the way that china runs their country and their economy. we are a market economy. " we learned over the last few years is that you need a level playing field and you need market to have ground rules that are fair so that everyone can compete and we can get to the best economic outcomes. when we let market distortions prevent that, you are not making free markets. you are making for the kind of distortions that led us to the financial crisis we just had. i think some of those labels are part of the larger problem that we are quick to put names and not talk about the underlying issues. host: we have 10 more minutes left with sarah wartell. the new paper suggest the

president use some of his powers to advance progressive causes during the next two years. bowie, maryland. caller: good morning. a couple of things i would like to touch on. sarah mentioned the constitution. i think is interesting, especially going on where how our country is run. it is not a democracy. it is run by the people who are in power right now. the changes from time to time. is more of like an oligarchy, but that is neither here nor there. we're talking about progressivism. we have to mention the health care bill, which is one of the things that was pushed through by this administration. i think people are kind of missing the point. it is not so much health care as health insurance reform. going back to the constitution,

i would like to know if you could tell me where in the constitution it says that is okay for the government to force its people to have to purchase the service when it is something they don't necessarilyant or need. how is that right? >> republican lawmakers are expected to discuss the gop agenda. the federal society is an organization of conservative and libertarian leanings members. >> u.s. senator mike lee opens his online biography with a the following sentence, "mike acquired his love for the

constitution early on by discussing everything from the due process clause to the second amendment around the dinner table." [laughter] this guy is serious. lest you believe that this is a near-rhetorical flourish, i have it on good authority from people who saw and heard mike on the campaign trail that he spent much time talking quite seriously and specifically about the limits on government power contained in our constitution and why they need to be respected. one current u.s. senator whom i will not name and whose accent i am about to butcher said to me, he is actually out there talking about the commerce clause. well, yes senator, and i expect you'll be hearing much more about that very soon. [applause]

might serve as the president of the byu law school chapter, and perhaps this explains his campaign speeches. it would not be fair for us to take all of the credit. he did a clerk for judge samuel alito. his father was a brilliant lawyer who served as solicitor general of the united states under president ronald reagan. please join me in giving the senator elect a warm and hearty welcome. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and for the opportunity you have given me to speak to one of my very favorite groups.

the introduction reminded me that when i first target campaigning, people would look at me kind of strange when i mentioned the fact that we would discuss this sort of thing around the dinner table. i think i was 38 or 39, which i now them, before i realized that not everyone discusses the commerce clause over potatoes. [laughter] for me it was perfectly normal. the united states constitution and many aspects of u.s. history were something of a second religion in my house. we discussed these things constantly. i remember conversations with my dad about roe versus wade when i was 10 years old. he explained the facts of the case, and as he finished explaining it to me, my response was, separate and apart to the insult this presents to the dignity of humankind, it overlooks the fact that there is nothing in the constitution that makes this a federal issue. i was really bothered by that

issue at that age. i do not think he realized i was weird either. [laughter] i decided to get into this race and to run for political office because i have come to believe that our federal government is too big and too expensive. i doubt there are many in this audience that will disagree with me on that point. but just in case, just in case there might be a few of you out there, i will remind you of the fact that our federal government has accumulated almost $14 trillion in debt. by the end of the year we'll have a $15 trillion debt. there is -- that is a lot of money. there are people across the united states, here in the district of columbia, in the state of utah, and all across the nation who do not make $15 trillion in an entire year.

[laughter] it is true. if you divide that by eight the number of americans, it works out to about -- if you divide that by the number of americans, it works out to about $50,000 per head. however, it works out to about 125 belsen dollars per taxpayer. that is quite a -- $125,000 per taxpayer. that is what the problem. the part that we do know is sufficiently disturbing to cause us to realize we have a problem. it is a problem that harkens back to an earlier time in our nation's history. an earlier time a couple of centuries ago, when american started expressing concern about the distant, powerful,

national government, not based in washington, d.c., because it did not exist then. this was then part of maryland. but the national government based in london. it taxes too much and regulated us too heavily. it did not respect to the american principle of local, self-ruled. people govern themselves better than government governs us. where government is necessary, most government decisions are better made locally then they are at the national level. this government was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs, even when it did respond. and so, the people came to an understanding that feels somewhat familiar to us, that national government, by their very nature, have a tendency toward tyranny. they have a tendency to become a tyrant, ultimately, unless their

power is carefully checked. that remains true, this tendency toward tyranny that national governments have, regardless of whether the government in question is headed by a king on the one hand, or by an elected president. even by an elected president who thinks he is a king. [laughter] unless we restrict the power and put careful boundaries are rounded -- around it, tierney will ensue. it is an elapid -- tyranny will ensue. it is an inevitability. we as a country decided that we would reject this kind of government. we put together our founding document. we decided to come up with a list, a list of powers that we knew we had to have in our national government. we put forward that list in 8.icle i, section pap

this all too important but all too frequently overlooked portion of our constitution. we decided to give congress the liker to regulate thinkigs interstate and foreign commerce, to develop laws regarding naturalization, to develop a uniform system of weights and measures, to declare war, to regulate federal public land in certain circumstances subject to certain limitations, and there are a few others, including my personal favorite, the power is to grant letters of been a it marked and reprisal. we do not talk about that one as often as we should, although we do in my house. my children have come to regard the one with great affection. but in case you missed that one

in your last family discussion, a letter of march or reprisal is basically a hall passes issued by congress that entitles the holder to state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the united states of america. it is the last thing i do, as long as i serve in the united states senate, i am going to get a letter of marque and reprisal, and you can all join me. my point in all of this is to underscore the fact that within that document, within the us charter for our national government, there is no power to do all things that congress deems expedient. there is no power to make life fairer, more enjoyable, more equitable for americans generally. there are instead limited

powers which james madison, whose name this society reveres, as i do, are clearly defined. those powers can be presumed to exist in the states unless they are indicated year. that was made abundantly clear without ambiguity or uncertainty in the 10th amendment. and yet we are where we are. and yet, since the new deal era, every single year the combined expenditures of the 50 state has beennt significantly less than the expenditures of the federal government. that was never true before the new deal era. it has always been true since the new deal era. i trace this back, most of it,

to the changes that occurred in our commerce clause jurisprudence in the late 1930's and early 1940's. with certain legal cases, the court followed a standard regarding interstate congress. it is a very simple concept. congress may regulate any aspect of human existence. and yet, there is not a single point upon which we could be more certain that the founding fathers of agreed and then and that they were not creating a federal government with these

powers. they were not creating an all- purpose national government. not one of those men would have signed their name to this document and not one of the state would have ratified the document had they believed that what they were creating, what they were ratifying was anything other than a limited-purpose government. [applause] now, i have been told since high school that i need to bury the hatchet when it comes to wicker the phil burn -- wicker v philburn. my school teacher told me to just get over it. the federal government is big. that ship has failed. leave it alone. i do not think i want to.

i do not think i can. [applause] you say, because the king's court threw in 1787 remain true -- uc, because the things that were true in 1787 remain true today. we would not be in a position where we are facing a $15 trillion debt with 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement liabilities if they simply respected these basic precepts, if they stuck to the program, if they focused on those things that they are supposed to be doing. i mean look, there is only so much you can spend granting letters of marque and reprisal, right? [applause] the solution, i believe, lies not with an attempt of the federal judiciary to roll back

legal precedent. do not get me wrong. i love baathist -- i would love it if that happened. even under that president, this health care plan crosses the line. the american congress is telling the american people that they may have to buy a specific product today may not want. i applaud the efforts. i do not believe that they can return us to what i referred to as constitutionally limited government fast enough to get us out of the mess the we are now facing. i believe, hope and expect that in time we will have a supreme court in which the majority of justices will decide that the standard adopted previously

utterly obliterates that doctrine. until that time, what to do? i believe we can do something that will not have to take years or even decades to complete. we have, as it turns out, not just one branch in our federal government. we have three. and only one of th is controlled by people with lifetime appointments. the other ones you can vote for. the problem is that in the political branches over the last 75 years, members of congress in both houses of both political parties have seen that the supreme court answer is always yes, really with only two exceptions, the united states versus lopez in 1995 being one and the united states inverses morton being the other.

in every other case where the question is, does this accede congress's commerce power, the answer has been no. some members of congress have stopped asking the question of whether they could, because the answer has always been yes. then they stopped asking whether they should. each member of congress is required to take an oath to uphold the constitution. in my mind, that means more than doing that which you can get away with in court. we drove over year in a taxicab just a few minutes ago from my temporary space up on capitol hill. i do not know whether the cab driver exceeded the speed limit law at some point. he may have. i was not watching. but the fact that we did not get a ticket on the way over does not mean that he was complying with the law. it just means a the did not get caught. so too with congress, especially

when you consider the facts that, in many circumstances, very few people, if anyone, could be said to have standing to challenge certain actions taken by the federal government. especially when you consider that lawsuits and never get brought because of the perception of futility. it is not fair to say that just because the courts scarcely, rarely interfere with congress as exercise of authority that congress and members of congress are complying with their oath to uphold the constitution. what i am saying is that members of congress need to be held accountable, and need to hold themselves accountable to their oath, regardless of what the courts might be willing to enforce. that needs to become part of the american political discourse, the question of whether each member of congress, or each person pursuing an office in

congress, will independently police and independently limit to the exercise of congressional authority out of respect, out of devotion to the principles of the american revolution, those the were embodied in our founding-era document, principles that have been utterly ignored, i believe, for the last 75 years within the three political branches of the government. we must expect and we must demand more from our leaders, but it will not happen until we as voters and start the discussion, until we commence what i call, "the constitutional debate." when i first decided to get into this race, to run for the united statesenate, i wondered, as a lawyer, am i speaking out on this to the point where i cannot see the inability of the young

lawyer public to grasp the importance of this? in audiences throughout my stay, i ran the basic history of wicker v philburn. i explained the origins of the commerce clause and how its interpretations had evolved over time. people got it. they understood it. i continue the discussions after i got into the race, and sometimes my campaign staff had to get after me. they told me in most circumstances i could cite only one case in one speech. i could refer only one time to a specific identifying clause in article one section eight. i found all sorts of ways of getting around that, but the point is, people listened. people without any legal education can and do grasp these things, and they grasp it well. this is something that the american voting public can and

should and must, and i believe well, understand, because it may well be that we can get out of the current mess that we face. for the principal reason capital-letter -- for the principal reason that renewed emphasis on federalism not just when the accords it did not just within the courts, but within the public, maybe the only non- partisan, non threatening way the week and based some of the problems that we have. -- that we can face some of the problems that we have. it is quintessentially american. the idea of self rule is an american idea. it is one that allows us to remain agnostic on many of the most fundamental and sometimes contentious questions that we face in government, questions considering such things as what,

of any, is the role government in the provision of health care? there are people on both extremes of the political spectrum who i believe could find areas of common agreement with what i am saying. for example, there are people to the left of me politically to would say that the only way out of our current health care crisis is to establish a single payer, government-run health care system. i want to be clear. i am not one of those people, in case there was any mistake. there are those who feel that way. fed many of them are just as adamantly hostile toward obama- care as i am . there are other people who say the government should never, ever get involved in the health care of the citizenry.

it should be up to private institutions, families, churches and so forth. regardless of where you are on that spectrum or whether you're somewhere in the metal, i think it is much easier to get people to the point of asking the additional question, not just whether government should get involved, but at which level? should it be at a national level or should it be at the state level? i think we can make a compelling argument, even one directed toward our radiological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. -- our ideological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. you could do it far faster, with far more consistency, making it far more true to what you envision as the utopian ideal of the federal government providing, or a government providing this. if it is not the federal

government, then the state. there are many people in vermont would like to create such a system, a system that would be far easier if the federal government stayed out of this all together or at least avoided any further intrusion into the realm of what is within a what states control. it is already the unique prerogative of the states to licensed physicians, to license other health care professionals including nurses, to license hospitals and clinics, to regulate the provisions and the issuance of health insurance policies within this state, and lawsstablish a system ofi governing medical malpractice lawsuits. states can bar more effectively, i believe, manage all of this rest -- states can a far more effectively, i believe, manage

all of this or risk, rather than having those decisions made at the national level. there are other practical decisions to be taken into account as well, geographic, demographic, and other particularized circumstances that vary dramatically from one state to another. one state may be able to do far more for its people based on the money it is able to bring in and then another state may be able to do. in utah, for example, the average health care cost per person per year is about $3,800. in another state, it is over $8,000. there are similar disparities all over the country. if released big decisions at the state level, i believe they can be dealt with far more effectively and efficiently in a manner that is more respected to life, liberty and property that we as americans tend to cling to. that is the whole reason why we are here today and we are not

speaking with a british accent and we do not wear wigs when we go into court. [laughter] [applause] not that there is anything wrong with that. [laughter] i used to ask the justice alito whether we should not bring back the way to the court just to add to the decorum of the whole thing. he did not write off on that at all. he was not enthusiastic. my hope, my motivation for getting into this race has everything to do with restoring the debate, to the political branches of government. for my part, i pledged to my constituents at, and i repeat that pledged today, i will not vote for a piece of legislation that i cannot reconcile with the

original intent of the constitution. [applause] to say that differently, if i cannot imagine myself explaining to james madison with a straight face why what i was doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it has been amended all 27 times, i will vote no. i will do every single time, regardless of what the president says i can get away with -- precedent says i can get away with. there is a big difference, and it is a difference that i will honor, a difference that will guide me and will guide my every vote as a u.s. senator. my hope is that by making this part of the american political discourse, as it once was, and i believed it was for the first 150 years of our operation under

the u.s. constitution, we will as a people be able to come to some consensus as to what powers might be long more properly at the state level. this does not mean less government overall, necessarily. this does not mean that we cannot provide certain services to provide a social safety net to people. but it may mean that we refocus our attention away from the federal government in some instances and for the states, that we will be pushing some power out of the federal government where it will be received by the states. we need people pushing that power out of washington, and we need other people on the other end to a bullet into the states. i believe they can and will doing -- people on the other end to pulpit into the state. -- to pull it into the states.

i believe we can do it and we will do it. may god bless the sovereign united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] >> the senator is going to take two very quick questions, and they need to be short so we have time for an answer. in the back. >> congratulations on your election. i have a question for you. there is a debate about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary, whether

senators should just make sure that judges are competent and not cronies, or whether they should really scrutinize their beliefs. i wonder what your thoughts are on that. >> we are not there to just check a box. we are there to look for obvious pathologies and say, has this nominee ever been convicted of a federal offense? ok, the answer is no. did this person graduate from law school and passed the bar exam? i think we are there to do more than that. in my case, that means a thorough examination into whether or to what extent each nominee understands his or her commitment to the constitution and to the laws of the united states. i will be looking into the idea of contextualism. this old-fashioned notion that our laws consisting of words and

our words have meaning, many of which have been ignored, will lead to anarchy. that is what will guide me. >> who do you perceive in the senate will be an ally to your pledge to examine every piece of legislation along a constitutional litmus test? >> we have a few there already who feel this way. i want to be very careful. we had a role to speak no latin. i told my staff today that i can keep out -- geek out all i want,

these are my people. my c.e.g. reference is to jim demint and tom coburn. i would also include rand paul from kentucky, marco rubio from florida. there are others as well. this is not something that is unique to any one senator. unfortunately, it has been too rare. fortunately, it will be rare no more. [applause]

>> thank you very much. we look forward to having you here in washington and that many of these gatherings as well as others. thank you very much. [applause] we are going to move right into our next address. if we could have the congressmen and david come to the platforms. >> thank you. it is great to be back again. i am here for a very brief purpose right now, to introduce our next speaker. he is a dear friend of mine from before i ran for congress. it is my congressman from the sixth district of indiana. he has been on the judiciary committee and is knowledgeable of those issues, most recently

as no. 3 in the republican leadership, and somebody that many, many people say is going to be a leader not only in our party but in our country. he has given an interesting talk that i have asked him to share with us today on his view of the presidency and the constitutional parameters for that office. so, without further ado, let me give you mike pence. [applause] >> thank you, david mcintosh. i not only followed him to this podium, but i followed him to congress. he was a tough act to follow in 2000, and we have been huffing and puffing to keep up with david mcintosh, one of the storied founders of the

federalist society. thank you for your leadership and your friendship. [applause] my topic today is the presidency. and the constitution. and my remarks are derived from a speech that i had the privilege to give at a college just a few months ago. i bri as a matter of first importance. as our nation embarked on the process of considering not only this president and a presidential contest, but it is my hope that our nation will consider the presidency itself. it is in that spirit and before this distinguished group of legal minds that i bring my remarks today. the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american

government. more often than not for good or for ill it sets the tone for the other branches and it spurs the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequential. its requirements from the outset and by definition are impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and a consistent attention to its purposes as set forth by the constitution of the united states. is it not amazing? given the great nature of the office, those seeking it should take pause. there is a matter rush toward something that once its powers are seized can be wielded as an instrument. other than in a crisis of a house divided, the presidency is neither fish nor intended to be such an instrument.

when it is made that, the country sustains a wound and cries out justly and indignantly. what the country says, the theme of this address, what it says quite naturally and rightly, what it may well have set on november the second, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. [applause] it says that the president should never forget this, that he is not risen above us but is merely one of us. he is chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision according to the design laid out in the

constitution and impassioned by the declaration of independence. the presidency must adhere to the definition expressed in the the constitution and the conduct of find overtime and tradition. while the powers of the of the seven large, along with those of the legislature and depthe judiciary, the framework is different. without proper adherence to the role defined in the constitution of the presidency, checks and balances become weakened. this has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the congress at times, and that the congress is independent of their desires. fused in an unruly unity, the political class has reached

forward with an expansion of power and prerogatives mistakenly believing that power is by definition good. even among the simplest among us, that is not so. power is an instrument of fatal consequence. it is defined no more readily than quicksilver and escapes intentions as easily as air flows through a mesh. a republic, if you can keep it, is about limitation, and for good reason. we are mortal. our actions are imperfect. the tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best of choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind. some, perhaps many, may die. because of this, a true statesman lives in what

"stressl called paa soul." he may give to call but only because he is robs peter. -- he may get to paul, but only because he robs peter. that is why we should be wary of a president that seems to float on his own greatness. thurgood marshall said that we should, "to do of what we think is right and left the law catch- up." laws are being written that are so long that no human could read them in a lifetime, let alone

implement them, let alone give people the feeling that they are being asked, not told. our nation too often finds itself in the position of a dog whose position is to simply obey, but america is not a dog. it does not require a "because i said so" jurisprudence, to which is then demanded to catch up. it does not require laws of such complexity that they are heavier or a presidential acts like, speaks like, and is received like a king. [applause] the presidency has run off the rails. it begs a new clarity, a new

president. [applause] president is not our teacher, our two-tier, our guide or our roller. ouroes -- our tutor, guide or our ruler. it is not his job to redefine custom, a lot, believes, to appropriate industry, or to impose justice some 300 million people. it is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from the people to him and to the acolytes of his choosing. is my characterization of unprecedented resumption incorrect? i deferred to the judgment of the people which they will make in their own eyes and their own ears, but listen to the exact words of president obama's

transition team, who said at the point of his election, "it is important that president obama is prepared to take power and began to rule day one." or more recently, the new head of the financial consumer bureau wrote, "president obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field." take power, rule, leveling. though it is now, this has never again and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the american president. [applause] no one can say this too strongly. no one can say it enough until

it is remedied. we are not subjects. we are citizens. [applause] we fought a war so we do not even have to treat kings like kings, and if i may remind you, we won that one. the powers of the presidency are extraordinarily and unnecessarily great, and great president and treat them sparingly. no finer, more moving understanding of the nature of the presidency has ever spent expressed, in my judgment, then by president coolidge. he was the son of 16. "the day i became president," college wrote. he had to started to work in a

tobacco field when a co-worker said, "if my father were president, i would not have to work in a tobacco field," to which calvin coolidge replied, "if my father were your father, you would." [laughter] son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the south lawn. he wrote, "and what might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if i had not been president ," and then he continued, "in his suffering, he was asking me to make him well, but i could not, and when he went, the power

and glory of the presidency went with him." notensibility like desperthis, power, is the source of presidential and dignity, and it must be restored. it depends entirely on character, a discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic of life itself. it communicates the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself. he relies not on his own prospects but on the star of history, through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon him not merely by man but by god. in the capitol rotunda are

heroic paintings, the signing of the declaration, the victory at yorktown, and a painting that depicts a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. upon hearing from benjamin west the george washington, having won the war, urged by some to make -- to use the army to make but havingnking, surrendered instead, he said, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. he did, and he was. [applause] to aspire to such a virtue and

self restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense, it should be easy. difficult because it would be demanding an ideal, and easy because it is just the right thing to do and the rewards are immediate and self-evident. a president to slight the constitution is like a writer who hates his horse. he will be thrown. [laughter] [applause] and the nation along with him. the president solemnly swears to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement or reinterpreted. other than a crisis of morality, decency and division, like the civil war, if he should want to change the constitution to fit his own designs, he should do so by amendment. he adjusts the power of the

office by his own willful interpretation, and with the planned debate government of -- and we supplant the government a lot with the government of men. -- of law with the government of men. we can move back. who better than the president to restore the scope and devotion -- this hope and devotion? abroad, his character must change. were there to be a primer on how to act with other states, and

none has been needed up until this point, you could be confident it would contain the following. first, you do not about to kings. -- bow to kings. [applause] outside our borders, the president of the united states bows to no man. in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. [applause] you do not argue the case against the united states but rather the case for it. [applause] you do not apologize to the enemies of the united states of america. [applause] now, should you be confused, let me help. a country, people or region the

harbors, shelters, supports, encourages or cheers attacks upon our country are enemies of the united states of america and you do not apologize to them. [applause] closely related to this and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities is his duty as commander in chief. in this regard there is a very simple rule, and noun to some residents, regardless of party. -- unknown to some presidents, regardless of party. , and it is the biggest if a president can face, for it will follow him and cost lives, and

death, and it is and if that requires -- if, and it is an if the requires deep thought, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of the general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman, if, after careful collaboration, intense stress of soul and the deepest prayer, if then you go to war, then having gone to war, by god, you go to war to win. [applause] you do not cast away american lives for those -- or those of the innocent noncombatant on a theory. if the politics of your election or your own party intrude on your decision for even an instant, there are no words for

this. more commonplace but hardly less important are other expectations of the president in this regard. you must not stand on the provisioning of our armed forces. the error must be on the side of surplus, not scarcity. he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single american life. the american soldier is precious as even the closest of your kin, because he is your kin. for his sake, the president must say to the congress and to the people, i am the commander in chief. it is my sacred duty to defend the united states of america and to give our soldiers what they need to complete their mission and come home safe. [applause] in fulfilling this duty, if the

president waivers, he will have betrayed his office. this is not policy. it is probity. it is not an expedient artifact of the imagination. it is written on the blood soaked ground of iraq in afghanistan. it is in a thousand other places of our history in lessons repeated over and over again. the presidency, a great and complex subject upon which i have only touched, has become symbolic in overreaching. there are many truths that we have been frightened to tell. if we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. better that we should not flee, but rather fall -- but rather

stop, and look them in the eye. did not our forbearers say to us, knowing what they knew -- i have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions and speak the truth is simply, and to what is right. slowly, and with resolution. to work steadily, without animus and fear. to let the water tumble about us, be firm and unashamed in our love of country. i see us like those first federalist, back in 1776. danger all around, but a fresh chapter ready to begin, and

corrupted, with great possibilities and inexplicably, perhaps miraculously. the way is clearing ahead. i have never doubted the providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds. if only as a reward for a year and to first principles. as churchill -- as a reward for adherence to first principles. as churchill said, "he must indeed have a blind sold the cannot see it that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be faithful servants." a long time ago during the tortured history of rome in the fourth century a.d., the emperor constantine was faced with an ultimatum backed by what

appeared to be military force impossible to resist. a failure and defeat seemed certain to everyone, but in the morning, when his answer was due, he said to his assembled troops, "last night, after i retired to rest, the shade of the great konstantin rose before my eyes, and his well-known voice and forbade me to despair of the republic." we too have a voice is of shades who emerged from our past. we too have what lincoln in his first inaugural address called, "mystic chords of memory stretching from everywhere." they bind us to the great and to the humble, the known and the unknown.

and if i hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not stray too far to return, for we are, everyone of us, their descendants. the sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. we can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. i know this is true. but even if it were not, we could not, indecency, stand down, if only for our debt to history. the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, who suffered more than we suffer, who gave more than we

pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, who they did not know. for we drink from wells that we did not dig and are warmed by fires we did not build, and so we must be faithful in our minds, as they were faithful in theirs. many great generations are gone. but i see them in my mind's eye. by the character and memory of their existence, they for give us. i see them crossing the prairies in the sun and the wind. i see their faces looking out from steel mills.

and, emigrant ships, crawling into the harbor head-on. i see them at war, at work, and at peace. i see them long-departed, looking into the camera with hopeful and set highs, -- sad eyes, and i see them and raising their children, who became us. they are a family in our blood. we can not deserve them. in spirit, all of them come down -- come down to us in a love we cannot be trade. they are silent now, but from the eternal silence of every and patriot grave, there is yet an echo that says "is not too late, keep faith with us, keep faith in god, and do not, do not ever

despair of this republic." [applause] >> thank you. god bless you. thank you for the opportunity. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you to you. [applause] >> thank you, mike. i can assure you we in the federalist society will not despair. jane has asked that we take a short break. mike will be out in all. we have run out of times for -- time for questions and it will be back at 3:15 for the next one. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> will be back live with the federalist society national

lawyer convention at 5:15 this afternoon. the guest speaker will be the honorable dennis jacobs, of the second search of the u.s. -- second circuit of the u.s. court of appeals. from the associated press this afternoon, no documents have surfaced in the ethics case of congresswomen maxine waters of california. the house ethics committee says the best pals -- postponed her trial net charges seat in properly tried to and get federal assistance for a bank where her husband is an investor. when more issue the house will be dealing with, as will the rest of congress on november 29. this weekend on "newsmakers" house democratic with james clyburn, and how house democrats view their role. here's a look. >> i have been out there

campaigning with them. when i saw their attitudes, i was extremely heartened by -- now, remember, some of them barely won, but a lot of all our people barely lost. we have done the calculations. if you look at the votes in total, somebody lost about 300 votes here, 1200 votes here, if you add it all up, it comes to 50000.han 2 just as a lot of people barely won, a lot of people barely lost, and i guarantee you, if we speed the recovery from 25 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour, and we keep going where we have been going, we will have the wind at our next two years from now, and i can tell you these people will be back.

>> rematch city is what we are looking for? >> absolutely. or country. >> will see a lot of these narrowly-defeated democrats run again. >> a absolutely. >> rep clyburn was elected to the new position of minority leader. you can see the full interview sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern, and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern on "newsmakers." earmarked account for less than one-half of 1% of the budget. they are part of the agenda. find out what earmarks' are online at the c-span video library. it is washington, you're white. -- your way. >> tune in the saturday, for a day-long symposium on the silvo war with prominent historians

giving a new perspective. our coverage starts saturday, on american history tv, telling the american story every weekend, only on c-span3. the u.s. house is not in session today. members are in their week-long thanksgiving recess. one of the issues likely to come up is extending long-term of employment insurance tariff yesterday, a three month extension fell short -- insurance. yes become a three month extension fell short of the votes needed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass emergency unemployment compensation continuation act, h.r. 6419, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6419, a bill to amend the supplemental appropriations act, 2008, to provide for the further extension of emergency

unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from la, mr. boustany, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, this is called an emergency bill because it's an emergency. for millions of people, this is an emergency. unemployment benefits will run out in a few days. therefore it's an emergency for the united states of america. and let me just indicate what's at stake here. through january 1 of next year,

close to two million people will not any longer be eligible for benefits. and then a month later the amount almost doubles. this is an emergency. i received a call last night i was in my office at :30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia -- at 9:30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia, to thank me and to thank mr. mcdermott and to thank our party for bringing up this extension. i don't know what more any of us want. i don't see how we can go home for thanksgiving when as a result of failure of benefits hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it.

and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. this should be a bipartisan effort. this is a totally human effort. this is totally an urgent effort. these are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. for every job at least five people are looking for employment for that job. i don't know what other evidence needs to be brought here. it can be stated very briefly and directly. if the two million people who are going to lose their benefits looking for work were brought here so we could see them, would

anyone vote no? would anyone vote no? do we need the two million here? can we put ourselves in their homes, in their shoes, in their places with their families, with their children? this is an emergency. this house must act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: as yogi berra said , this bill is like deja vu all over again and not in a good way. the bill before us today is a ninth extension of unemployment benefits since mid 2008.

benefits recently stretched up to 9 weeks or almost two years in most states. and with the exception of just one billion, last november every one of those extensions was not paid for. that's a total of $135 billion added to our $14 trillion debt. meanwhile, our democrat colleagues swore their policies would create jobs but they haven't. instead of paychecks, millions of americans were left with only an unemployment check. in february of 2009, the president signed the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus plan. democrats at that time promised that the plan would create 3.7 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate to 7% by now. none of that happened. instead, over two million private sector jobs were lost and unemployment has spiked to 10% while the debt has grown by almost $3 trillion.

a total of 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since this democrat stimulus bill passed. here we are again extending unemployment benefits because the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs that they promised it would. but even more sadly, instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $12 billion to our current mountain of debt and we can do better than this. we certainly can do better than this. both republicans and democrats support helping long-term unemployed. the chairman of the committee expressed a great deal of empathy in his opening statement. we share that empathy. every one of our congressional offices has dealt with families dealing with this tragedy of unemployment. but republicans and even some democrats want to sonsably pay for these benefits. in fact, there are sufficient

unspent stimulus funds to do just that and cover the $12 billion cost of the bill before us. this is not a new republican idea or a new idea, this is something we have discussed before. but the other side insists on bringing this forward unpaid for. the chairman of the senate finance committee has proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain measures. last june the democrat leader himself, mr. hoyer, admitted there was spending fatigue across the country and that if, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act they should be applied to new spending like this, end quote. that would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in spending and debt that has already cost us an estimated one million jobs. the fact is we can both provide this help and pay for it. by cutting less effective stimulus spending.

that's what we should be debating today and not a bill called up under special rules that permit no amendments and no chance to offer ways to pay for this. even if this were to pass, the sad thing is there are no plans in the senate for a vote on this bill any time soon. so the fact of the matter is this bill is going nowhere. the american people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overgrown -- overdrawn national credit card. they want -- we all want to help those in need. but the american people also know someone has to pay when government spends money. and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren. madam speaker, the american people sent us here to do a job. we should pay for this spending today. we can pay for this spending today. there is no reason why we couldn't bring a bill forward with a way to do this. a way to pay for it. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject

this bill today and instead let's work together to quickly pass the bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from louisiana, the people of this country looking for work don't want empathy. they want unemployment insurance that they worked for. and you're standing in the way. don't send them empathy. send them what they worked for. i now yield four minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from washington, and i ask permission that the balance of my time be taken by the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from

washington will control the time and is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i ask what the division of minutes is at the moment? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: on the republican side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 6419 which will extend current unemployment insurance benefits through february of next year and provide much needed help to unemployed americans during the holiday season. from the beginning of the unemployment insurance program 75 years ago, we have never cut off benefits for out-of-work americans where the unemployment rates have been this high. without this extension, temporary federal extended benefits will shut down shortly after thanksgiving, the 27th,

and denying benefits to two million of our fellow citizens over the holiday season. it's unthinkable to me that we could allow these benefits to last during the holiday season and before the economic recovery is on solid ground. despite the severity of the republican economic collapse, which started under mr. bush, there have been 10 straight months of private sector growth under this democratically controlled congress and administration. despite the huge accomplishment of digging the american economy out of the republican economic ditch, two of the americans remain unemployed. there is still only one available job for every five unemployed americans. to make matters worse, the president's now carrying reports that employers around the country are refusing to hire the unemployed. they are saying to the

unemployed, we want to hire somebody who has a job to come over and fill our job. because we know you were laid off because you weren't a good employee and that's why they let you go. we don't want to hire people who aren't worth anything. that's the message that's going out in this country to the unemployed. and many of those people are middle class people who worked very hard and through no fault of their own their industries collapsed. banking, housing direct results of what the bush administration did or didn't do, really, that is regulate wall street. unfortunately the republicans who already made it clear that instead of helping the middle class one of their top rightors is to give millionaires and billionaires a huge $700 billion break. now, the same people who are saying this should be paid for will be out on this floor

sometime in the next couple of weeks saying, we don't have to pay for a tax break, why that will just -- that will pump jobs into the world. all we have to do is cut taxes everywhere and we give $700 billion to people who make more than a half a million dollars a year, that's ok. but an unemployment check for somebody to keep bread on the table and keep their mortgage paid is not ok. we can't not fund that. this is an emergency. people who talk like that on the floor of this house have never been unemployed or never have known anybody who was unemployed. you would not talk that way about unemployed people if you knew them. now, this should give every middle-class american a lot to think about the results of this last election. this is your first chance to

observe what you can expect in the next two years. the majority leader -- the minority leader in the other body said, my number one priority is to prevent barack obama from having a second term. not public policy, not jobs for people, not health care for people, but political games. and that's what this is all about. the experts agree, two out of every three people who get unemployment benefits are in the middle class. we are not talking about people who weren't trying or weren't working or doing their part as americans. while the republicans were bankrupting the country to help the rich with one hand, giving tax breaks all over the place, the republicans were using the other hand to push the unemployed middle class of america out of their homes and never dealt with the foreclosure issue to prevent them from having food on the table and keep their children from being

properly clothed. . on the campaign trail republicans called the unemployed lazy. you have never met an unemployed person or you would never say that a second time to them. they say unemployment benefits spoil out of work americans. they get lazy and sit around the housand wait for their unemployment checks. those checks aren't that big in the first place and secondly, people don't like to be unemployed in this country. people look for work and they're looking for work and they're now being told, you've been out of work for two years, we don't want you, we want somebody who already has a job over here. some republicans question the constitutionality of the unemployment insurance program. the health and welfare of the american people is

unconstitutional, according to some people. fortunately, the american people don't feel the same way. a recent poll showed that 86% of americans believe the unblowed really want to work. that's what the people think. that's not the political rhetoric of people running for election. but that's what the people really think. the election is over now and americans are have said, we want both parties to work together to get things done and do it by listening to the american people. americans don't want to push american families whose breadwinners lost their jobs through no fault of their own into poverty during the holidays. i think we should end these debates and extend benefits longer and allow benefits to be scaled back on the economy as the economy improves. the reason we've had all these votes out here is because the senate is unable to do anything. we've tried to extend this for extended periods of time and

over in the senate they can think, let's extend it for a month. see if we can starve them for a month. they let this program lapse for three months over there. and you're telling me that we're going to work together. i think we ought to work together. the short-term extension is an effort to see if our republican colleagues will support any kind of help for the unemployed. i'm told by the other side that there's no plans in the senate to take up this bill. well, they're waiting to see if we can get it out of here. if you don't help, maybe it won't get out of here. but the message to four million americans will be, the republican party doesn't care whether you have a christmas or a way to fund your mortgage or a way to put food on the table for the first three months of the next year. i hope my republican colleagues will join the american people in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from louisiana. >> madam speaker, we're hearing oversimplifications from the other side. mr. boustany: this is not one of those either you pass it or you don't types of issues here. we could pay for this. and the sad thing is, all i'm hearing on the other side is a great deal of cynicism. furthermore, look the american people have spoken about this. they are saying, we've got oget a handle on national debt if we're going to get thecony going again and create jobs because the american people want paychecks. they want good-paying jobs they want an end to this uncertainty. we have information from the mcarthur foundation, a very respected organization, they released a poll showing that 70% of voters in month's leches say it's important to reduce the national debt. overwhelmingly, voters want us to reduce the debt by cutting

spending. instead of doing this, fiscally responsible thing and paying for this new spending which we could very easily do, the bill before us today does exactly the opposite. it adds $12 billion to our nation's debt in a program that's already added $135 billion to the national debt. the sad thing is, madam speaker, we could extend these unemployment benefits and we could pay for them. look, the bill reflects, i think, a very cynical political maneuver by the democratic leadership because they know that the senate has no plans to pass this unpaid for bill. we've been down this path before. in fact, the liberal "huffington post" has broke then code on what's going on here. there was a recent headlines, jobless benefits about to lapse as senate democrats mull strategy. that was the headline on tuesday. and, quote, no plans in senate for a vote on unemployment

benefits, read the headline yesterday. the quote senator -- to quote senator reid from rhode island, a democratic leader on the legislation, i quote, at this point it's not been scheduled. i can't point a specific time it will come up for a vote this week. end quote. the american people are tired of the cynicism and they want answers. the sad thing is, there's a simple answer on this one. unlike many of the other problems our country is facing, which are much more complex. we could extend unemployment benefits and we could pay for it. but our friends on the other side of the aisle currently control the house, control the senate, kohl the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. -- control the white house and they can't even get their act together to do this. especially since there are republicans who one willing to do this extension if it were paid for. there is a way to pay for it,

yet our friends across the aisle refuse to see this. i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i use 30 additional seconds. my friend on the other side clearly understands, i'm sure, the legislative process. we put a bill over to the senate, they can make a change. if they want to pay for it, they can pay for it. they are safe. they're comfortable. because they know you're going to stop the bill. or try to stop the bill. they know that the house republicans are determined that they're not going to let this bill through here. so they say, all right, we can say we have -- we won't do anything with it. my opinion is if we put a bill over there, they'll pass a bill. i yield two minutes to mr. davis. mr. davis: spaung, mr. chairman. i believe the american people want to work. those who are unemployed want jobs. those who are out of work want

employment benefits. i don't think that there is any excuse that could be given. there's no reason that one can conjure up. i would say to a person who is unemployed, out of work, have no -- has no food, can't pay their mortgage, can't enjoy the holidays, that there is a reason, especially since they have worked, that they can't have benefits to get them through this season on an emergency basis. i'm amazed. i'm dumbfounded, i can't believe that i'm hearing what i'm hearing. that somehow or another, the democrats, in a technical sense, are keeping individuals from getting unemployment benefits.

i would hope that we could change our minds, change our positions, and know that when we do this for the least of these, then we're doing the work that we ought to be doing. let's pass this measure to provide benefits to the unemployed and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will take this opportunity to remind all members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i want to remind our friends on the other side that in the past when they did bring the bill up on suspension, it failed and yet when you did on one occasion bring it up on regular order, it did pass. we all have to work hard to listen to the will of the american people. yesterday, speaker pelosi herself said, i quote, our consensus is we go out there listening to the american people, it's about jobs -- it's

about jobs, it's about reducing the deficits, end quote. yet here we are again today being asked to increase the deficit by another $12 billion, another $160 million in debt for every family of four in the united states, just for three months of benefits under one program. all of the -- all on top of the $.8 million of debt we wracked up since president obama took office. the question, madam speaker, is , is the speaker really listening to the american people? what we heard earlier this month is that people want us to provide help to those in need but not add a mountain of debt that we are currently leaving to our children and grandchildren. the sad thing again, i are repeat, the sad thing is, we can achieve both goals today. we could have. the congressional budget office has informed us there's enough unspent stimulus spending that

we can cut to cover the additional spending in this bill. it's unconscionable that the other side has not heard the american people about the concerns about unfettered debt passed on to our children and grandchildren. again, mr. hoyer this past summer suggested we do just that, in june, he said, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, they should be applied to new spending like this. in july, 59 democrats signed a letter saying, and i quote, extending critical economic investments is no more important than paying for them. america is facing a debt crisis that is threatening to undermine our economic and national security. we can no longer afford to exacerbate the problem because the decisions about how to pay for what we spend are getting harder, unquote. this one is so easy, we have a

way to pay for it. yet the majority chose to bring this to the floor unpaid for and without an opportunity to even offer an amendment. so i ask our colleagues on the other side are you listening to the american people? madam speaker, are they even listening to each other? and do they agree with the speaker that it's about debt? all we're hearing are mixed signals. if so, join us in voting down this unpaid for bill and working together on a new bill which we could do very quickly that does right by the unemployed as well as our children and grandchildren. that's what the american people expect of us today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: can you tell us how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has seven minutes remain, the gentleman from louisiana has nine and a half minutes remaining.

mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the joint economic committee, which i chair, released a report today that finds that if congress fails to extend the federal unemployment insurance benefits program, the unintended consequences could be extremely serious. serious, not just for the two million americans who would see their benefits expire in december, but extremely serious for the larger economy as well. prematurely ending the program would drain our economy of some $80 billion in purchasing power. just as our fragile economy is beginning to recover. this would result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year. even now, there are five americans looking for work for every job opening in the land.

and more than 40% of those unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. including over 159,000 in new york state with some 95,000 in my home of new york city. choosing to vote against an extension and thus add a million americans to the ranks of the unemployed cannot possibly be considered as a wise economic policy choice. the nonpartisan congressional budget office ranks the stimlative effects of unemployment benefits as one of the most effective policies to reduce growth that they have studied. and the president's council soft economic advisors estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60.

economists predict that without extended benefits, the economy will suffer, consumer spending will fall by .5%, and economic growth will be reduced by almost a half of a percent. the facts and the numbers in the -- i request five seconds. mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: the facts and numbers in the new report make it clear that extending this program benefits those who need our help most, benefits the larger economy, and thus benefits us all. so i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i, again, say there was a way to pay for this.

we have to be frank with the american people on this. jobless benefits have cost so far $319 billion, and yet unemployment is still at 9.6% and we've seen really nothing coming from the other side who controlled the majority of the house, controlled the senate, controlled the white house. we've seen nothing to help small businesses get going again. we've seen nothing to promote competitivive -- competitiveness in the economy. it is unpaid for. nothing -- there was an agreement. we're saying let's do it in a responsible way and pay for it. you know, it wasn't always this way. this is the ninth attempt to extend this program, and when democrats passed their only paid for unemployment insurance extender bill in november of 2009, the only one that was

paid for, the administration, the obama administration hailed that fiscally -- i quote, fiscally responsible approach to extending unemployment insurance, end quote, add, again, quote, fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs, end quote. that was from the administration's statement of policy about the democrats' one paid for u.i. extension bill, which was h.r. 3548. 156 republicans supported that november, 2009, bill. but the administration's only logic, democrats had an irresponsible bill which increases the deficit by an estimated $12 billion undermines the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the sad thing, madam speaker, is this -- we could extend unemployment benefits and pay for it.

this is not a hard one. there are harder decisions coming with the debt our country is facing and economic uncertainty. republicans are ready to move forward and get this country going in and to restore american competitiveness, but i see our friends on the other side of the aisle are up to their old ways. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i have no further speakers, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: madam speaker, i believe we concluded debate on our side of the aisle, and i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. boustany: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington to close. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i found that the other side is very adroit at finding some

reason not to help the middle class. now, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the people in this country are not interested in cutting off food and housing and medical coverage for people who are unemployed in this country. and do use these arguments, well, we're going to get the money from the stimulus money, i defy anybody on this floor at this moment to stand up and tell me where that stimulus money is and what the impact would be if you cut it. because that money was allocated to various agencies, some to purchase -- pay salaries for school teachers, some to pay salaries for policemen and firemen and local government, some to pay the states for medicaid. all this money is out there.

maybe some of it hasn't yet been spent, but it's allocated. some of it is for construction projects. i suppose you, like that governor in new jersey, who really think it's politically smart to stop a public works project on the hudson river because then he can use that money to pave potholes in new jersey and he puts the construction workers out all over the place, out of work. those infrastructure projects, you can't spend all the money on the first day. it does take a little while to build it and you pay it out as you build it. now, you know that. you're -- republicans aren't -- they're not -- they're just being deceptive. they think because it still is there in the treasury it can be used for something else. it might have been committed for something else, but not my republican friends. this emergency that these 4.5 million people have over here

who have no benefits coming by the end of march, you folks understand that you shouldn't worry about this. i mean, the speaker -- the speaker will explain it to you that they -- you just have to wait until we find where that money is in the budget. this is an emergency for people who have no check coming. now, we would all like this thing to be all over. there isn't anybody on this floor, republican or democrat, who wouldn't like the mess that was created by the bush administration to be over with. it isn't. and the problem is a guy in my district is, jim, i can tell you what the problem with america is, and your republican side has a bad dose of this. he says it's the belief in the microwave. if they have a problem they come down to the refrigerator, they open the refrigerator, pull something out, open the

microwave, throw it in, push two buttons and then they have lunch. they think everything can be solved like that. it took eight years for mr. bush to create the mess that we are dealing with, and it's not going to be over in 30 seconds like the microwave dinner is. and the fact is that you got people who contradict you directly, the real budget. no one's ever going to accuse me of being a big budget warrior or deficit warrior. but the president of the concord coalition, the organization dedicated to eliminating federal budget deficits said, and i close, as a deficit hawk, i wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. it's not going to add to the long-term structural debt, deficit and it does address a serious need. i just feel like unemployment benefits wandered into the

wrong street corner at the wrong time and now they're getting mugged. and he's absolutely right. for us to pick on the unemployment benefits as the problem for this deficit, wait until we have the debate on taxes on this floor, and i hear people whining around here about people making more than half a million dollars and we have to give them a tax cut. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 6419. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6419 azzammed. -- as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. boustany: we would like a recorded vote, the yeas and nays, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. boustany: yes, madam speaker.

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. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. >> the long-term unemployment extension fell short of the needed votes yesterday. the current extension runs out at the end of this month. house democratic leaders say they plan to bring the bill again after the thanksgiving recess. but today was the day new members take their offices. arkansas republican rick crawford was one of those. his district encompasses northeastern arkansas. is a small-business owner and broadcaster. joining him in the house will be

republican scott tifton. he is a pottery company owner, who will represent all of western, and most of southern colorado. iraq's account for less than one-half of 1% of the -- remarks account for less than one half of 1%. find of what earmarks' are, with the c-span video library. >> the senate, mauve and as the american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the civil war with prominent historians giving neighbors but of. our coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern, an american history tv, telling the american story every weekend, only on c-span3. major mortgage lenders admitted to sloppy practices during a

testimony yesterday. representatives from bank of america, j.p. morgan, wells fargo, and citibank testified, investigating the mishandling of mortgages and foreclosure proceedings. this portion is about one hour. our fourth witness will be alan jones. our fifth witness will be mr. harold lewis, managing director citigroup mortgage. our sixth witness will be the president and ceo of mortgage electronic registration systems

inc.. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. i think that when you were asked to come, you were notified that we might want to swear you again. before you began, i like you to rise, raise your right hand, and answer the following by same "i do. but -- "i do -- by saying "hi bill." -- "i do." do you solemnly swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the -- but the truth, so help you god? >> thank you, would you please be seated.

you will now be recognized for a five-minute summary of your testimony. you, misst with maloney. >> thank you, chairwoman, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. the economic downturn, and sustained high unemployment, coupled with the collapse of the housing market, have led to challenges much more profound and complex than anyone anticipated. for a bar or, the prospect of falling behind on a mortgage payment due to loss of income would be a wrenching personal situation in any time, but these are not normal times. if every day, we talk to tens of thousands of customers who are facing hardships, and looking for our help. importantly, more than 86% of our customers are current on

their mortgage payments today. unfortunately, others are not. at foreclosure sales, one in three properties are vacant, and there are far too many abandoned properties driving down home values in neighborhoods across our country. helping customers remain in their homes, wherever possible, is a top priority for bank of america, as evidenced by nearly 725,000 modifications completed. we have reached a crossroads between modification efforts, and the reality of foreclosures. despite our best efforts, and numerous programs, for some customers, foreclosure will be unavoidable. that has driven an increase and -- the concern that we have been hearing from our customers. it is our responsibility to be fair, and to treat customers with respect as a transition to

alternative housing. we, and those who work with us in connection to foreclosure proceedings, have an obligation to do our best to protect the integrity of those proceedings. when and where that has not happened, we accept responsibility for that, and we deeply regret that. when industry concerns are rose with the foreclosure affidavit process, we were the only service her to stop foreclosure sales nationwide, to review all of our procedures. we know concerns are not those that are just technical, and we are taking this matter extremely seriously. we have confirmed that the basis for our foreclosure decisions have been accurate, but we did not find a perfect process. we are already moving forward with needed improvements, but engagement of others is also required. as a servicer, we must follow the guidelines established by

our ancestors, related to modification and other foreclosure alternatives. where we can act to improve the process alone, we will, and we have. we will continue to innovate on behalf of our customers. here are a few things we are doing based on feedback from you, our customers, and other stakeholders. first, we will improve communication. a frequent source of customer frustration is when they feel they do not greet the same person twice, or more than twice. we half -- we are, and have redesigned our process to offer a single point of contact for every eligible customer who desires a modification. more than 140,000 customers have already been assigned to a case owner, to whom they could always turn. if to reach more customers, we have held more than 500 housing

fairs, partnering with nonprofits and congressional members. we have found that the opportunity for customers to meet face-to-face, is important, and can enhance the response from our customers, as well as a successful modification outcome. in particular, we have valued the leaders of the member of the to the members of this committee -- the members of this committee, and look for to working with members in the future. secondly, we will provide greater clarity to customers going through the process. another source of frustration is the parallel foreclosure and modification process that is required by many investors. we want to partner with you and other stakeholders in looking for ways to change the so-called dual track process, and mitigate the very real concerns we of heard about that process. thirdly, we are making

improvements to the foreclosure process. we determined, during our ongoing review, that our process did not conform to the best practices in some cases. we have introduced a new affidavit form, and additional quality-control. we are also implementing new procedures for selecting and monitoring outside foreclosure council. we are carefully restarting the affidavit process with these and other new controls in place. our commitment at bank of america is to insure no property is taking into foreclosure sale until the customers are given a fair opportunity to be a value- added for a modification, or if that can not -- to be evaluated for a modification, or if that cannot be done, foreclosure is the option of last resort. thank you. >> thank you. let us go to our next witness who is seated there.

who is that? let me see. >> thank you. chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is tom and i am the ceo of ally financial mortgage operations. the mortgage business is conducted through gmac mortgage. as you have heard, there were certain unacceptable flaws in our execution and the authorization of certain affidavits in the judicial foreclosure process. the errors we have found should not have happened, and we have undertaken a significant and expansively mediation effort. initially, our real mediation effort focused on those affidavits. we then decided to go further. we have a dedicated team,

independent of the foreclosure department, that is taking a second look at each loan to ensure that home ownership preservation options were offered in addition, we have retained national council to oversee the mediation efforts, and to review our policies and procedures related to foreclosure in all 50 states. we also brought in price waterhouse cooper to evaluate those policies and procedures across the board. we have increased staffing, and provided additional training. at this point in our review, we have not discovered a single instance where the foreclosure sale was unjustified. by that i mean our ongoing review has shown that by the time a case has gone to foreclosure, a bar were is in default, and we have reached out to offer a home ownership

solution. i have long been an outspoken advocate of loan modifications. i believe foreclosure is a last resort, and is not economically advantageous for anyone. it is devastating for consumers, and provides no additional benefit for servicers, investors, or communities. i brought my perspective on homeownership preservation to gmac mortgage when i came to the organization in 2008. at that time, and gmac mortgage was a company in severe distress. today, we have turned the corner, and continue to focus our efforts to help consumers find an affordable and sustainable alternative to default. while some of the home preservation programs were in place before i arrived, i worked to increase these efforts. i have always believed that we have a much better chance of helping consumers stay in their homes when we reach a consumer

at the early stage of default, seek complete financial information early in the foreclosure process, and work on solutions at the early stage. we can do better, and i have tried to instill a sense of urgency in our company to find work out solutions where possible. since 2008, we have achieved by hundred 65,000 work out solutions, -- 5 ended 65,000 work out solutions, which is more than three times the number of actual foreclosure sales. many of these families would have otherwise lost their homes. even if a homeowner does not qualify for a loan modification, there are many alternatives to foreclosure, such as forbearance and repayment plans. with your help, principal forgiveness might become a more widely available solution. rest assured, i know this process is devastating for homeowners. the paperwork required is

cumbersome, and the strain of needing monthly obligations can be difficult for a family that has experienced financial hardship. the most and portent objection -- objective for loans we services to work with consumers and investors to achieve a solution that reduces the risk of default and foreclosure. i am committed to finding innovative and ways to streamline the process. we have worked hard to fix errors across the board. i also believe that we must work hard to avoid foreclosure, particularly during the early stages of default. of course, there are going to be times when foreclosure is unavoidable. my 25 years of experience in the industry has led me to believe that we must work harder to find solutions for homeowners who want to remain in their houses or sell their properties.

we reach out to homeowners in several dozen times throughout the lengthy process of foreclosure to find an option that is best. i strive to make sure that every american has the opportunity to obtain a loan modification and avoid the -- avoid having to foreclose. >> next we will have the executive vice president of consumer practices at j.p. morgan chase. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. i am the head of the office of consumer practices at j.p. morgan chase. j.p. morgan chase is committed to ensuring that all our wars are treated fairly and with success, that all appropriate -- are treated warborrowers

fairly and with success, and that all appropriate measures are taken. we take these issues seriously. we are actively correcting our issues. at the outset, i would like to emphasize that we prefer to reach a solution to keep people in their houses. foreclosures caused significant hardships and result in severe losses for lenders. we always consider whether they are a viable alternative. chase adopt its sun modification program starting in 2007 and in 2000 -- its own modification program starting in 2007 and in 2009 has modified the program. we have offered nearly 1 million modifications and completed nearly 250,000 modifications.

sustainable modifications are not always possible. some people cannot afford to stay in their homes regardless of the modifications. others are not seeking modification. while we make repeated efforts to modify delinquent loans, sometimes we must proceed to foreclosure. we do not go to foreclosure is a modification is in process. but if a foreclosure has begun an to the borrower begins the modification process, we allow the two processes to run at the same time. we will not complete the foreclosure if the modification is completed. i understand you wish to temporarily suspend foreclosures and a number of state. it is important to note that the issues that have arisen in the foreclosure proceedings are not related to whether the foreclosures or warranted. in addition, we have substantial steps to ensure that

foreclosures are a last resort. we serve as millions of loans and sometimes we make mistakes, but when we find them, we fix them. our recent temporary suspension of foreclosure applications involve an affidavit that may have been assigned based on file reviews performed by other chase personnel, but what is set forth in the affidavits, the core facts justify in foreclosure were verified prior to the execution of the affidavit. let me repeat. we take these issues very seriously. we did not live up to our standards. we have thoroughly reviewed our

procedures and undertaken a complete review of our documentation execution policy. we have also enhanced training for all personnel involved. we are working to review all affidavits on file and pending matters. we are committed to addressing these issues as the early and quickly as possible. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. allen and jones. -- alan john's. >> i am manager of operations -- alan jones. >> i am manager of operations for the wells fargo, loan

servicing. i appreciate the opportunity to speak about our effort to keep american families into their homes. we view foreclosures as a measure of last resort. there are cases where someone cannot afford property, even with a modification. we look for ways to protect the surrounding community. we told ourselves accountable for the quality of our foreclosure data and work to borrowers areur are wor protected from unlawful foreclosures. as the economy has continued to present challenges, our goal has been to keep people from losing their homes. since january of 2009, which provided nearly two 0.5 million customers with payment relief from refinancing and modification, including reducing

principal. 92% of our portfolio has remained current on their payments. our statistics have remain the best among our peers over time. with the goal of exhausting all options before moving to foreclosure, we have hired and trained 16,000 people, and we expect all of them to follow our policies and procedures 100% of the time. we created an electronic system of record for each mortgage customer that includes data such as the customer's name, address, number of payments, and notes. we attempted to contact our customers more than 125 times during the period of first delinquency before foreclosure sale. investors often require the

initiate foreclosure proceedings during a certain time of delinquency, but we continue to try to work with our customers to avoid foreclosure. we prevent foreclosure for seven out of every 10 customers whose payments are more than 60 days past due. unfortunately, some customers are in houses they cannot afford. in september, customers to completed foreclosure were on average 60 month's delinquent on payment and could not compromise on their contract. we believe is best for people in those circumstances to transition to affordable housing. we try to alleviate further burden on the community. wells fargo has a rigorous system designed to ensure quality data is used to make for closure decisions. we lessen the chances of error by pulling a daily sample of the

data we send electronically to external foreclosure attorneys and do a manual check of it. we address all errors when found. we identified incidents where final steps were not adhered to, including a final review of the affidavit. well we do not believe these issues resulted in foreclosures that should not have otherwise occurred, we voluntarily opted to provide additional insurance by a providing supplemental affidavits. we rely on outside foreclosure attorneys who are licensed by each state to ensure that we comply with state law and regulation. in conclusion, wells fargo will continue to help homeowners and stay in their homes, including the better explaining the foreclosure process.

we developed a model to allow one customer to work with one person threw up the process. we have 15 large scale home preservation events and 25,000 customers at 27, preservation centers across the country. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i am harold lewis, head of a homeowner's assistance program. we are working tirelessly to help families stay in their homes. since to belsen seven, we have dealt more than 1 million -- since 2007, we have helped more than 1 million borrowers. we have redoubled our efforts toward helping customers who are

facing financial challenges. we have a well trained and dedicated staff of approximately 5000 employees to work with the average borrower is to help them find solutions to avoid foreclosure. in addition, we have partnered with the number of community groups across the country to further these efforts, including neighbor works. we believe we have been a leader in actively identifying eligible borrowers, conducting extensive outreach, and leading them through the process of applying for a trial modifications and obtaining permanent modifications. we provide detailed instructions for completing required documents and follow-up with applicants by telephone, e- mail, text messages and in home visits. by the end of september, 44% of

our eligible borrowers had obtained a permit modification. further, our agreed-default rate is well below that of -- our re-default rate is well below that of our peers. we have an unemployment assist program that provides temporary lowered payments to borrowers both have lost their jobs -- borrowers who have lost their jobs. for those farmers who simply cannot sustain home ownership -- borrowers who simply cannot sustain of ownership, we provide alternatives to foreclosure that allow families to relocate. all of us recognize the

hardships that can be suffered by the family losing its home. foreclosures are a terrible outcome for both families and communities. it is always a last resort for us. in the event that a foreclosure cannot be avoided, we do everything possible to make sure that the process for our customers is as smooth as possible. now, regarding your specific concerns about the foreclosure process, we undertook a thorough review of our process beginning in the fall of 2009. subsequently, we implemented a series of steps to strengthen existing practices and add additional resources to ensure that foreclosures were being processed correctly. we centralized power foreclosure operatin -- operations into one unit and enhanced staffa for greater efficiency and control. we limited the volume of documents that staff is allowed

to process at any given time and now require employees to be recertified on proper procedures every year. for their part, managers were made accountable for regularly reviewing files to ensure that employees comply with the proceedings. as an additional quality control measure, we have been reviewing affidavits that were executed in pending judicial foreclosures initiated prior to the full implementation of our improved practices. we expect to refile a number of our affidavits. should defects be found, no foreclosure will be completed until a new affidavit is filed. this exercise will help us to ensure that these affidavits are accurate and properly executed. the changes we have made this year give us confidence and that there is no systemic issue in our existing foreclosure

process. while we have made important progress in helping keep americans in their homes, there is more work to be done. as a ceo has said, a week ago a debt of gratitude to the american taxpayer for providing citi with t.a.r.p. funds. we believed it is the responsibility of citi to help american families in financial distress. we are committed to helping americans with the home ownership challenges they face. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairwoman waters, members of the subcommittee, my name is r.k. arnold. thank you for this opportunity to appear today. i am president of a member base organization made up o 3000

mortgage lenders. we maintain a nationwide database that tracks changes in services and mortgage loans. today, we are keeping track of more than 31 million active loans. that is about 50% of all the loans in the united states. our data base is important to the mortgage industry because it is the only centralized database in the industry that uniquely identifies each mortgage loan. it is important to individual borrowers because it provides a free and accessible resources where are ours can locate their servicers and in many cases learn who their note under is. -- note owner is. they can also use it to identify who is responsible for maintaining vacant property. it is used by law-enforcement to track lins taken now utilizing

name, socialower's security number and property. we also provide another key function. we serve as a common agent. we have a designation approved by the bar or at the closing and signing of the mortgage. -- by the borrower at the closing and signing of the mortgage. we're able to receive and obtain updated information over time because we are the central clearing house for receiving mail pertaining to the mortgage. one thing that is always clear in a mortgage document is that if the borrower defaults, the lender can foreclose.

if we hold the mortgage lien, foreclosures can occur in two ways. it can be reassigned in the land records to the lender holding the notes, which is in the vast majority of cases. the lender can initiate action on a ton. or we can initiate action. either way, the note and mortgage come together at foreclosure. to do this, we rely on specially designated certifying officers to handle the foreclosure. decertifying officer must be an officer of the member -- the certifying officer must be an officer of the member union familiar with the functions to be performed. these the kind of individuals who dwould handle the foreclosue

for the lender. we are not a depositories for mortgage documents or promissory notes. our revenue is entirely from fees charged to members. we do not decide when to foreclose. foreclosure must be authorized by the note honor and must be done in courts where there are owner and must boehn be done in courts where there are strict rules and requirements. we prohibited the use of affidavits done by our company once we saw that they were being used in place of the appropriate notes. when we did not receive assurances that our rules would be followed, we suspended relationships with some companies. we discovered that robo-signers

might be officers of mers. we suspended their authority. we keenly understand the while owning your own home is the american dream, losing that, is a nightmare. we're devastated by the increase in foreclosures. we believe we can be a tool to provide better animation and provide transparency for -- better information and provide transparency for consumers. mers benefit's real people, real homeowners. thank you for holding these hearings and inviting us to participate. >> thank you all very much.

i would like to ask a few questions. i yield to myself five minutes to do that. i have here a stack of the positions -- depositions. in these depositions, employees admit to things like robo- signing, not being trained in how to prepare affidavits, not having manuals to file -- to follow, the list goes on and on. each of these were initiated well before you issued your moratorium.

my question is, these depositions were taken months ago. what has taken so long to institute changes? could i just start with bank of america? why did it take so long? >> sure. thank you. for the last two years, our focus has slowly been on in dealing with the extreme capacity requirements and staffing requirements. as we have worked through these issues, our primary focus has been around data controls as well as serving the customers and modification as well as foreclosure prevention. we were, as a management team, not aware of the inconsistencies around the affidavit process until very recently. unfortunately, we did have associates that were relying on

data controls and ended up signing high volumes of affidavit inappropriately. they did not a year to the procedures and policies, and we -- adhere to the procedures and policies, and we are making changes accordingly. we take this very seriously. we have also, at the same time, made a decision to halt foreclosures across the nation in order to ensure that we can do a fairly dramatic review in allstate cases, both judicial and nonjudicial, to ensure that we are in compliance. >> i will not be ab to get to each of you to ask why it has taken so long, but let the record show that it is a real concern that it has taken so long and that so many of these problems exist. i want to put something up on the screen if i could get some help from the staff.

this price sheet advertises services like creating entire collateral files among other document services. now, we do not know when this price sheet was drafted or for how long it was used, but the very fact that it exists is very alarming. i just want everyone to address this in their testimony, but i did not really get that feedback that i thought was necessary to address this. would you considered document creation in a foreclosure case to be fraud? let me just go real quick and ask each one of you, starting with bank of america. do you consider document creation in a foreclosure case to be a fraud? >> we do not believe that would be fraud. >> you raise a good point. >> i cannot hear you.

>> you raise a good point. again, we do not use that. >> chase does not -- >> i cannot hear you. >> can you hear me now? chase does not use that. we have some companies that we id, but evend who dea with them we stopped using it a year ago. >> are you doing document creation now? >> we are not. >> would you consider it fraud? >> i think the question of when documents are replaced is very specific to the case involved. >> we also do not use docx.

>> do you use any services to do document creation? >> a thing you have to ask exactly what you mean by document creation. we do not fabricate documents for, for closure -- four for closure. -- for foreclosure. >> we do not use docx. >> do you use anybody to do document creation? >> that depends on what you mean by document creation. >> is creating an entire collateral file fraud? >> a collateral file that does not exist or reproduction from the database? >> let me go to mers.

you see what the concern is. we are basically out of time. >> i am falling apart yea -- here. i have one quick question. you mentioned in your testimony that you work with neighborhood assistance corp. of america. we have had some strange things happening in my county that have been coming to my office. papers are faxed to me, and it will be somebody's mortgage papers, social security, a lot of personal information from them, and it will tell me to

call n.a.c.a. do you know that this is happening? these are formal papers. >> i am not aware of what you're speaking of, but i will be happy to follow up and get some more information. >> if you could, since you work with them. these clients have signed off on privacy. this is something that is going around. we're supposed to be helping them with their mortgages. >> just to make sure, the question i am following up on is why naca would send private information to your office? >> and that is correct. >> i will follow-up on that. >> this is a yes or no question.

how many of you [unintelligible] >> at bank of america, we do, yes. >> we do as well. >> we do. >> i missed the question. >> do you use fannie or freddie, either one? >> yes, we do. >> maybe i should have said to does not. >> fannie and freddie are very large users of mers. >> can any of you describe the problems that you have had working with -- and what i am concerned about is the very limited number of fannie and freddie related law firms that process foreclosures. >> i can take that.

we have raised the issues with these law firms with both fannie and freddie from the very beginning when the issues came to my attention. the issues are twofold. one issue is simply a lack of capacity. there are a limited number of firms on their list. one of the lists in particular has not added a substantial number of firms in two years. the other has added firms and now they're both actively adding firms. the second issue appears to be one surrounding the behavior of their firms. i would say initially that while there was oversight present, i do not think they were fully aware of all of the activities. once we assisted them in understanding what our concerns were, they both reacted very quickly.

>> anyone else? nobody has any problems? mr. jones? >> we have experienced the same as the previous witness. >> interesting. there is a "wall street journal" article about the issue. whe fannie conducts regular audits of its approved attorneys' it says that the mortgage servicers are ultimately responsible for ensuring that foreclosures are done properly. fannie also said it was planning to add more. would you say that is true, that the mortgage servicers are really responsible for the approved attorney? >> at bank of america, we are requested to use both fannie and freddie specific outside

counsel. we do so at their direction. we clearly are responsible ultimately fourth quality of foreclosure, but we are directed specifically by those firms. >> we take responsibility for our actions. however, i would also say that we are using council. they are referred to as directed council. we are in a constant battle of managing the timeline of our investors, including fannie mae and freddie mac, and the needs of our consumers. we do everything we can to facilitate what we can do for the consumers, but it should not be lost on this committee that our investors put enormous pressure on us to follow time lines and processes, and we often push back very hard so that we can meet the consumers'

needs. >> it also talks about your bank as having suspended thousands of foreclosures. was that due to limited attorneys' or was that a different problem? >> we suspended about 100 two thousand or more foreclosures primarily due to the affidavit processes improvements. we are also looking at council quality and controls. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you to the witnesses. one of the testimonies talks about the hard reality that homeowners cannot afford the mortgages that they engage in.

maybe implicitly in that statement is a comment that it really does not matter whether the rule of law and due process is filed against these homeowners. i think it is also a hard reality that a lot of investors want -- bought toxic paper, paper that may have been rated by a rating agency as aaa or a viable investment, sometimes not, depending on the different trenches. but these investors are also playing a role in the decision of whether to foreclose are not and there are various people that may have conflicting interests. i think there is also a hard reality here that the wall street banks, a lehman brothers, goldman sachs and others were encouraging this securitization of mortgages and also played a

role in getting us to the place where we are today here. perhaps some interest here facilitated all of this to happen, making it easy to get around requirements for actually filing mortgages and other liens. my concern really is, where should the public interest lie in all of this? should it be the community which has seen mortgages and home values decline? people have may be bought a house in their community and are making payments but nevertheless, because of what is going on with their neighbor and their neighborhood, they are finding that their investments are now under water. should we protect the homeowners, or should we be looking to be concerned with the

investors who invested in these mortgages that are not paying off? one of my concerns is this process of talking to the homeowners about home modification engaging the homeowners and making those payments, but at the same time engaging a dual track in which foreclosure proceedings have already begun against those very same hall donors. i am curious about -- very same homeowners. i am curious about whether or not you are engaging this dual track and what you see as the value, or who is hurt? who gains? who loses in a dual track process? >> you have raised a number of

very valid concerns that we share as well, specifically to the dual track peace. our concerns are very specific and include the customer experience along the way. from a customer's perspective, as they move into the foreclosure process, and at the same time are reviewed for modification, it can be extremely confusing. we have worked very hard at putting a single point of contact in and putting extra communications and to help customers understand, but nonetheless it continues to be a problem. at bank of america specifically we are reviewing the process where we on the loans themselves to reconsider making that a better experience for the customers. utside of the loans we hoenown ourselves, which are nearly 80% of our portfolio, we are

required by investors to do the dual track. >> so the servicer of the mortgage goes one direction with the customer, but it is a different obligation for if the investor that requires you to move faster in foreclosure despite the modification process. >> that is correct. >> as you did raise several good point, what i would like to make sure is clear is my firm and i believe that foreclosure is a very poor choice in this entire equation. the problem we have in the industry is that the mortgage market is one where you have servicers to serve as for their own portfolio and also others.

a long legacy of rules and securitization processes that were not designed for the current environment. we actually only own less than 5% of the loans the we service. so what we try to do is make sure that we serve the consumer and encouraged investors to do what is right for them, which is to correct foreclosures. in particular in the past year i have been tempted to notify investors -- i have attempted to notify investors that the existing contracts need to be changed to give us greater flexibility. we have received virtually no support for that. it would idaho does that through your efforts and the efforts of the chairwoman -- what i would hope is that through your efforts and the efforts of the

chairwoman weekend may -- we can begin the process of moving this forward. we have been dealing with this for three years. we need to change the process. >> thank you. i missed your testimony earlier because i had to step out, but i understand that you testified that a major reason there were not modifications of principles was the objection of investors, the holders of mortgage-backed securities. i have heard from investors that they would like nothing more than to reduce principal loan mortgages if that would mean that you can avoid foreclosure. it would be far better for them if that was the case, and they further state that it has not happened because servicers have interests that are different from theirs. there are interests in avoiding liability, interests pertaining

to second liens. their article -- there are different interests and the failure to modify is a violation of the fiduciary duty of the servicer is to the holders of residential mortgage-backed securities. if you contend that investor objections, the objection of an investor is a reason for not modifying the existing principle, can you identify for me and for the committee the investors to have objected and provide us with documents, the letters that state their objections, memoranda the state's their objections, e- mail, whatever documents they have provided you that they do object and what their objections are? can you do that for us? >> sure, on the modification side of girl, what i would say is -- >> i just want you -- will you

give us the names and identify those investors who have objected? >> re-indefinitely give you the names of investors who do not allow it -- we can definitely give you the names of investors who do not allow modification. at bank of america, overall, we do have very specific rules for reduction. >> if you could give us those investors and the reason for their objection. as to the rest of you, can you provide that information? i have a lot of nodding heads there that you will get that u.s. -- to us. secondly, we talk about whether there was a conflict of interest for servicers to also and

another on -- to also own on their own aspects of the same property. we also rebounded -- we also heard about conflicts of interest regarding intimation that investors want access to. there should be a fiduciary duty to those investors. they say that they are not getting that information because the servicer or the trustees are protecting affiliate's. awhirl without addressing whether there is a conflict -- without addressing whether there is a conflict of interest, what possible advantage is there for a servicer being affiliated with a securitized third?

if there is any reason at all for them not to be affiliated, if there is any possible conflict of interest, what is the countervailing consideration that should allow it? does anyone have a reason? what is the advantage? mr. jones, the name of your firm is wells fargo home mortgage servicing. could you not perform all of your functions as well if you were a completely independent and not affiliated with wells fargo? what is the advantage? >> thank you for the question. wells fargo is a full financial services firm. we offer our banking customers loans, right? to do that, the securitization process is important for us to be able to make that happen. we do not own all of the loans

that we service. customers come to us who want a home run. we take care of that, and need. -- customers come to us to want a compa loan. we take care of that home loan. customers who have mortgages with us a have many other products including banking, etc. >> customer convenience? my time is expired. >> the chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel that they may wish to submit in writing. without objection, the record will remain open for 30 days to allow members to submit questions for these witnesses

and to place their answers in the record. before dismissing the panel i would like to say that this hearing is but the tip of the iceberg. we did not get a chance for all of our members to raise the questions they would like to raise. this business of document production is a serious question. there are other serious questions about what authority you are operating under and whether it should be regulated. i think we will consult with the chair of our committee and others so that we can continue to hold hearings so that we can understand better what we can do to help our citizens who are faced with the tremendous problems that they have with foreclosure and other interactions with the banks and financial institutions, with servicers in particular. thank you very much. this panel is now dismissed.

i would like to welcome our distinguished third panel. >> this weekend, james claiborne on how democrats view their role in the 112th congress that begins in january. here is a look. >> when i saw their attitudes, i was extremely heartened by -- now remember, some of them barely won, but a lot of our people barely lost. some of them by 300 votes here, 1200 votes there, up 1400 votes there.

just like a lot of people barely won, a lot of people barely lost. a lot of people will stay on the field, and i can guarantee you that if we can speed up from 25 miles per hour to 55 m.p.h., we will have the wind at our backs two years from now. a lot of these people will be back. >> rematch city. >> absolutely. >> we're going to see a lot of these narrowly defeated democrats run again. >> absolutely. >> rep clyburn has maintained its no. 3 spot in the leadership. you can see the full interview with the south carolina

democrat sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on "newsmakers." >> earmarks are part of the agenda for the upcoming congress. find out what earmarks are online at the c-span video library. search and what programs explaining earmarks and the arguments for and against them. it is washington your way. this is saturday, a tune in a as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the civil war live from the national archives, with prominent historians giving a new perspective on the national impact of the war. the coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv, telling the american story every week and only on c-span3. >> next, a discussion on the impact state officials have on medicaid recipients. this is 40 minutes. re from the winners. with that, let me introduce you to our final guest. she has been at the table in

number of times and helping with the debate on health care debate. marilyn werber serafini is a special correspondt with kaiser health news. guest: i am technically doing a fellowship that honors the memory of robin toner, "new york times" reporter for many, many years. she passed away a couple o years ago from caer. i am with kaiser health news, a fairly new nonprofit news servic. we write health care policy stories for all kinds of papers across the country. we have been in "the washington post," "the new york times." we have our own website. i will be in this position until

the end of 2011. i hope to become a better reporter. hope to spend some time learning and slowing down a little bit. loading some aspects of health care policy that i did not know before. i hope to keep writing about health care reform. this is the time to be writing about health care. host: peoe will love questions. we wanted to is your in on medicaid and how the medicaid program might change as a result of the health care law. what is medicaid? guest: medicaid is the health- care program for the poor. it is atate-federal partnerships. the state put in their pot of money for helping this group insurance coverage. the federal government matches money. the governmentays quite a bit more than the states do. in some cases, the government pays about 60% of the cost.

in other cases, it pays up to 78% of the cost. with medicaid, we're talking about the poorest of the poor folk. we're talking -- it vars from state to state. states run their medicaid programs. they do it differently in every state. kids are covered. the lower-income kids. when it comes to adults, many parents are covered. if you're an adult and you don't have kids, it is difficult and you have to be a very poor to be without kids and i get any kind of coverag host: we have some statistics. approximately 53 million individuals in this country will be covered by medicaid this year. the federal outlay for medicaid is estimated as $290 billion.

guest: people don't realize that medicaid is right there with medicare. we think of medicare as being a huge program. medicaid covers a lot of people. host: what has happened to the role of those covered since the financial crisis? guest: it has put a huge burden on the states. and the financial commitment from the federal government has also increased. as we have hit this recession, or people have become unemployed, at leads to more people becoming eligible for medicaid. the medicaid rolls have grown with the recession. lag thee tends to recession. medicaid is always slower to get

back to its normal levels after a recession. host: looking at stories in the newspaper. republican governors have been meeting in san die. health care is on the plate because of the state budget situation. many of them are facing deficits. could you go into details about the state's responsibility in participating? it is a dollar-sharing program. do they get to make discretionary decisions about who can be covered? guest: states have no obligation to participate in this program, but all of them do. the thinking has always been across the board that it makes sense for states because the federal government picks up so much of the cost. it has been considered a no- brainer. why would you not put in certain

money to cover these low-income people when the federal government is putting in a huge amount of money? we have not talked about health care reform yet. the new folks who will be added to the program after 2014 under the new health care reform law, the federal government will cover more of the cost. currently, medicaid recipients, the government covers between 50% and 78% of the cost. in 2014, we start to see the medicaid expansion, the federal government at least initially will cover 100% of the costs for the newly eligible people. eventually, after a couple of years, that diminishes and the federal government still pays a lot more, and upwards of 90%. they will have a large

expansion, 16 million people across the country. the federal government will pay more for those folks. host: explain who the 16 million new recipients will be. guest: exactly. currently, it is difficu for adults to be eligible for medicaid. kids, absolutely. under the new law, anybody under 133% of the federal poverty level will qualify for medicaid no matter whether you are a kid, of gulf, whether you have your own kids or you don't have kids. that is about $22,000 for a family of four, the federal poverty level. host: 7 states will be required to contribute more funds. guest: that is exactly is it. states will not have to put in as much of their own funding.

they still have to come up with their own funding. they are having a hard time right now coming up with enough funding of their own to pull down the federal funding so that th can pay the doctors and hospitals that people on medicaid are seeing. host: 8 questioned more of philosophical estion. -- the ultimate decision was the creation of exchanges, market exchanges where people could buy in. was there and see policy debates about doing away with medicaid as a separate program and giving people vouchers to buy into that? guest: there was discussion about the perry differences between the house bill and the senate bill at the time. for a while, one of the bills

had in ia provision to allow these people who were under 133% of poverty, about whether it would be better to let those people get subsidies and to allow them to buy their private surance through the various exchanges that will be up d running in 2014. eventually, that dropped out of the bill and we ended up with was the understanding that the people under 133% of property would be in medicaid, except for legal immigrants. legal immigrants hava waiting time of five years before they can become eligible. under -- the new law, illegal immigrants will be able to get subsids and go into the exchange for those first five yearhost:.

you are saying legal immigrants. and illegal immigrants -- guest: are out of luck. host: let's get to some telephone calls. hagerstown, maryland. charles, a republican. caller: i am a tired physician. i was a primary care physician practicing internal medicine. primary care physicians are those that firsteat a patient with whatever problems they are having with their health. the big problem that i see on the horizon -- is already here -- is that there are not enough primary-care doctors to take care of all of the patient that are coming in for medical problems.

less than 5% of graduate medical school students intend to go into primary care. i heard the secretary of health and human services addressing a group of sponsors of lesser trained individuals who will probably end up as the new primary care -- i am speaking of physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners. my fear in conservation of funds available, we're going to end up with a lesser trade group of persons in the very important job of prima care. would you answer or speech to this problem? guest: you bring up an excellent

point. there is a huge concern that there will not be enough primary care physicians, especlly to see the medicaid popation. we are talking about expanding insurance to a lot of people. especially in the short term. 2014, 2015, and for the first few years, there is a great deal of concern that there will not be enough primary-care physicians or enough physicians in general to handle this large expansion population. one of the problems of medicaid in particular is that medicaid is the lowest pay your right now for physicians and hospitals and other medical providers. it pays the government when it pays these providers, it pays significantly less than it pays if you are a medicare patient or in privately insured pient. and that is why there is a

provision in the new reform law that would increase payments to medical providers who participate in medicaid. this is just for primary-care physicians. this has nothing to do with specialists. it would only do this for a couple of years. that is also worrying the states because at that time when the levels of funding -- when the payment levels for this primary-care physicians referred back to their previous level after a couple of years, the concern is that the states, feeling the pressure to maintain the new or higher levels to keep them seeing patients, that they will field the -- they will feel the pressure to maintain the harwell and that will cause a further strain on their budget.

currently, medicaid recipients all over the country report is difficult to get in to see a doctor. so this has led to a lot of discussion about what you are talking about, wch is how much power or how much ability whoo should physician assistants and nurse practitioners have in feeling and for primary-care physicians in certain circumstances? that is a very good question. it is a big part of the debate that we have not seen yet. host: we have a twitter. guest: that is an interesting question. i covered that law. i'm notctually sure how it did affect medicaid eligibility. host: how is it affected by

states with cash-strapped budgets? a couple of things that pop out regarding states and the budget woes. medicaid funding to states represents the single largest source of federal grants support to states, accounting for an estimated 44% of all federal grants to states. are they required to spend all the money they get on medicaid? guest: that is another question. there reay is not an answer to that question. yes, they are required to spend that money on medicaid. the big debate has been, do they really spend it on medicaid? if they get federal money, there are ys to move money around. the government has cracked down over the years to make sure that that money is not going towards the building of roads or schools or whatever other areas the

states might see a need, there is general consensus that it has -- all the moving around of money has not stopped. host: one of the things congress did was increase the share temporarily of dollars going to the states tha the federal government would pay. that money is beginning to dry up. how is that going to play out? guest: states are in financial crisis. under the new law, the federal government would pick up the full cost for the 60 million new people who would become eligible for medicaid starting in 2014. even though there would pick up the full cost, that is why states are sll talking about potentially dropping out of medicaid. that had been considered unthinkable until now. host: john says manstates are

challenging health care reform. guest: i think it could have an interesting impact. when states are talking about dropping at of medicaid, the texas governor is the only one at this point who has been out there in front and said, we are considering this. in other states, it is a discussion mostly at slightly lower levels. some members of the legislature here or there are talking about this. governors' offices, the staff might be looking into what it would entail the what the possibilities are. the affect, if it did happen, could be huge. i will tell you why. there is a proposal for now from the heritage foundation that talks about one possible option for doing that.

under this option, 40 of the 50 states would come out financially ahead. the dropping of that federal matching funding. what heritage is saying is that people between 100% and one under 33% of target do qualify for federal subsidies --133%. we're talking about a lot of peopleho aresing medicaid for their regular health-care services. they are going to the doctor or hospital or having surgery. there are two other parts of medicaid. one is a long term care. folks who are poor and require nursing home care or extensive

home health care. medicaid also spends quite a bit of money on senior citizens. seniors get medicare. medicaid helps them pay for their premiums. helps them pay for their co- payments. this is significant. this idea from the heritage foundation says take the states and they would continue falling and the stick full responsibility for their long- term care, the nursing home coverage, and also for helping the folks who are on medicare, the senior citizens who still need help paying their premiums. the rest of the folks, they qualify for subsidies. but by private insurance through the exchange. you are giving them full responsibility to the federal government. not everybody agrees tt this

is the case. there seems to be some confusion about whether these folks would qualify for subsidies. the people who wrote the law say that was not the intention. however, there are a number of folks in the government who are looking into this. they are surprised by this. we still don't have an official word from the federal government that this will not be the case, that they would not qualify for subsidies. this is kind of a big question. it might be a deciding factor in whether states moved ahead with dropping out of medicaid. if they did drop out of medicaid, if these folks to qualify for the subsidies and were turned over to the federal government, it would meet a lot more spending by the federal government. host: the kaiser group has a chart that answers how states use that funding. here's the chart right here.

the lighter color is 2009. that is less than the year before. host: that is how the enhanced money that is beginning now is winding down by the states. we're talking marilyn werber serafini with and we're talking with medicaid and the states. indeed, democrats line from florida. caller: good morning to you. -- amy. i am sure you can tell me

whether this is included also. this has always bothered me. when i was much younger, my health insurance had pardon parcel of it was done so. the view is from both doctors and dentists that dental care is very important to your overall health care. if you have bad dental care, it can create strokes and heart attacks and major infections in your body. i just don't quite understand why it is not still part and parcel of health insurance, whether it be from government health insurance or private health insurance. guest: that is a good question. go to the dentist and you might get a little bit covered by private insurance. but not very much, really. this is a good question. there is no enter as to what

except it is expensive coverage. host: you wrote a piece -- could medicaid recipients buy insurance? we talabout that. we have a tweet from michael johnson. guest: this is simply because the federal govnment or the writers of this law decided that these people would be better off in medicaid then there would be getting coverage through the exchange and private insurance. there are a number of questions as to -- there are some ups and downs about being in medicaid vs. being in the exchange. there are some folks out there, the ones who of like to see these people stay in medicaid, who say, if you put them in the

exchan, they might lose some benefits. on the other hand, there are folks out there who are arguing that people -- if you move these folks from medicaid to the exchange, they would have better access to physicians. right now, there are a number of physicians -- lots of physicians who simply will not see medicaid patients. it is hard in some areas of the country for medicaid recipient to get in to see a doctor. host: this is the james from nsacola, an independent. caller: yes. the economic situation -- if you're going to go broke -- there is a progressive medical program that the individual

there on the screen is saying we expand medicaid, medicare. .'m retired military served 24 years, tive duty. right now, if i want to go to see a doctor or dentist, i have to wait in line just like everybody else. medicare, medicaid. the congress wrote the law that we're going to have imposed on the public's. we have a choice. i have availability for medicare. in the military. i'm on medicare. however, the other countries

have a progressive-type medical system. most of them are going broke. we have one in the united states -- free medical. people -- why do we insist on bankrupting the american public with high-cost medical care? mr. obama -- host: thank you. guest: you hit on a od issue. there are many folks in washington who are concerned that the law did not go nearly far enough in trying to bring in the high cost of health care and to get better quality care at a lower cost.

there are centers of excellence within the country that have already begun doing a much better job and higher quality and lower cost and there are provisions in the health-care law to try to move us in that direction, by creating such things as accountable care organizations, meeting grouping physicians and hospitals together so that they are working together better and encouraging the use of electronic health records. but even so, a lot of these programs are pilot projects. everybody will not be doing them immediately. we do not know when others will be picking them up. there are still a lot of questions about whether the law went far enough. many peopl here in washington, many of the policy experts are very concerned that there is more work to be done. host: there is a piece in "the washington post" about a new

act by scott brown and ron wyden that affects states. ron wyden and scott brown introduced the empowering states ct.novate an host: the was a starting date three years after the starting date goes into effect. states could propose their alternatives now.

guest: this is interesting. senator ron wyden has been very involved in this debate all the way through. he had his own proposal during the health care reform debate. this is what we're seeing from the states. the states want more flexibility to expand medicaid and to provide coverage for these -- for this poor population the way they see fit. it is possle if the senators are successful in getting this kind of a law through, that we could see more differentiation in what the states are doing and how they are looking at expanding their population. the states have long complained -- many governors and many state legislators have complained that the federal government ties to many strings to that money.

they placed a lot requirements on them to cover certain benefits, to cover certain populations of people, and to do it in a specific way. there are a number of states >> we will leave this discussion for more from the 2010 federalist society convention. members are about to hear from judge dennis jacobs on national security and the constitution. the organization, made up of conservatives and libertarians voters are in washington d.c.. eugene meyer will introduce judge jacobs. this is live coverage on c-span. >> this memorial lecture series started, as many of you know, with ted olson's inaugural collection which reminds us of what it means to be an american and how our legal tradition is a

critical part of our identity as americans. both ted and barbara understood this connection. we want the lecture series to remind so that the foster legal principles to promote personal responsibility and the rules of law. we're delighted to have tolls and with us today. the lecture is followed by ken starr, now president of baylor, roger boar, justice scalia, judge randolph and chief justice roberts and judge edith jones and judge douglas ginsburg. we are very pleased to have the hon. dennis jacobs to follow these lectures to the platform. judge jacobs is the chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals of the second circuit. president bush appointed him in 1992 where he has served as

chief judge since 2006. his education included a master's in english literature at the advanced age of 21 from n.y.u., where he completed everything required for a ph.d.. then, the law school stole him. he spent his entire legal career litigating on commercial matters at the firm of simpson thacher and bartlett. he became a partner in 1980. in addition to being first in the law, judge jacobs is known for fairness and equality of his work. it does not stop with all law. not surprisingly, given his literary background, he reads very widely and has a love for music. perhaps more surprising in, i understand he has a source of knowledge about catastrophes

raging from the titanic to earthquakes. however, and the rumor that the democrats, after the 2010 elections and the republicans after the 2008 elections consulted him is apparently unfounded. [laughter] one other detail about our speaker is that we are grateful to him for many things, but mostly for stuffing envelopes for us when we first started our lawyers chapter in the mid- 1980s. we have appreciated his speaking to us a number of times. one other interesting fact about judge jacobs is when he was nominated, the senate was quite divided and senators were placing holds on the president's nominees. senator biden was chair of the judiciary committee.

for various reasons, the whole was dropped with the plan being having a difference in a to place a hold on judge jacobs. that was a fairly common practice. something wrong. the hold was never transferred. as a result, judge jacobs has now been on the bench for the last 18 years. [laughter] [applause] and we are honored to have this judge committed to the rule of law to present the 2010 barber olson lecturer. -- barbara olson lecturer. judge jacobs? [applause] [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity to deliver this lecture named for barbara olson. she was a commentator who spoke

to us about compelling matters with directness, candor and wit. it weighs on me to do justice to this occasion. i am going to talk about lawyers and war. more particularly, the professional elite and the bar association that is at war with the military of our own country. i am not the first to notice that among educated class is an contries in this country, there is a prevailing hostility. there is a suspicion of people in these institutions and professions, the police, the fbi, and even the boy scouts. this is nothing new. i am not courting the curtain. it is part of a wider fashion.

when many americans consider the military of the worst thing they can bring themselves to a mansion is the only truth they know. -- can bring themselves to imagine, is the only true if they know. -- truth they know. we need to take this phenomenon seriously because of our power, our influence over the constitution, our way in policy, and the roles that we have been given and have taken in american life. with us, there are consequences and features beyond the cultural divide. it becomes a great and consequential problem. what we hold in trust should cause us to examine ourselves by standards, even if we are not flattered by what we find. yet, so far as i can see, the tension between the military and the bar -- >> i start with the sacredness

that anti military individuals, the bar association, a large law firms and their pro bono projects, the law schools and all of their works, the courts, the judges, jurisprudence and what could be called big law. i will talk about how this came about and then i will make several points about it, most simply, this is unbecoming for the legal profession and betrays and distorts our law and is downright dangerous. [applause] ironically, it weakens rather than titans' civilian control of the military. ghtens civiliantitan contl of the military.

service in the military has been rare. it has been rarer still among children. those in the military, especially in the enlisted ranks, would just as soon be luckless refugees from unemployment and economic distress and backward areas of the country. to be sure, they are not like us. there is a well grounded impression that the demographics and characteristics of people in the military differ from the make up of people who formed the legal elite. secretary of defense robert gates observed at duke university that the propensity to serve it is most pronounced in the south and the mountain west and in rural areas and small towns nationwide while the percentage of the north and northeast and major cities continues to decline. so, the military is composed of southern and mountain types or

gulf dollars while we that our unit coastal and bicoastal, many of them are ruled while the are urbanites. the military maintains secrecy while we profess an interest in openness and disclosure, excepting the attorney private- attorney-client privilege -- attorney-client privilege. the military does not have our share of women, the geologist, gays, it english majors, the elderly, meet again and so on. to be clear, i am an example of the intercoastal urban elite. the little island that i live on his manhattan. i drive a military -- a foreign car and did not serve in the

military. given the differences between our sphere, in the elite institutions of the blower and little education, people in the military or actually sequestered or excluded altogether. there seems to be no effort in the law to correct this exclusion. in the law schools, the separation is police. law schools will come to their faculties of philosophers, sociologists, ethicists, scientists, political scientists and even criminals. but there are few with military experience. this absence is most remarkable among the considerable faculty teaching international law, human rights law and treaty law. i asked a member of a distinguished law faculty how

many of his colleagues had served in the military and after some thought, he said one. he added that the service was in the israeli army. [alause] [laughter] the banishment of rotc and military recruiting in law schools, there is a moral imperative. the need for federal funding prevents the actual execution of military recruiters, but i am told that some law schools circulate a cautionary memo telling students to stay away from military recruiters and other schools take other measures as recruiters said alone. -- sit alone. although official statements may say otherwise, military service is not credited as public-

service for purposes of scholarship funding for preferential admissions. i would bet that it is easier for law school applicants to claim the credential of public service by having done voter registration in a cemetery then by a stint in the navy. [laughter] thus, accord on a tear -- bus, people feel-- buthus, strongly about the policy of don't ask do not tell. that plan arab policy became a dominant. it has not abated or even much developed. young people that have been indoctrinated to work coral for

all things military have been taught to attribute that instinct to the policy on gays. there is opposition to the don't ask don't tell policy and it is unresolved. it also has separate sexual element. if don't ask is no longer not asked, when is it excluded from combat? is the institutional bias and so on? prejudice never runs short on its fuel of rationalizations. it must be said that citizens of a republic should be wary of their military as they should watch with caution over all government institutions. even lawyers should be watched. but distrust of power by the

legal elite -- the epa, the eeoc, osha, not to mention the courts, these institutions tend to be indulnt, preferential, trusting and nurturing. but when it comes to the military professions, and even military lawyering, the distrust manifested by american legal institutions becomes a fixation , a calling, and is considered a badge of honor. some of the hostility against the military by the legal elite has to do with the culture of the lawyers themselves. their political interests, and the pretensions. between upper class lawyers and the military profession, there is competition for prestige and influence and authority.

but it is an uneven competition. among the advantages are all of the legislatures and local courts -- and all the courts. internal restraints are deficient as well because of the profession is not self examining. law and competition do not get along well with others. we tend to press on without apology and we celebrate our dominance as judicial independence. this competition has become intensified by war. lawyers and judges say that if something is of great importance, it can be safely left to us. we like humility in approaching great matters. -- we lack humilitand approaching great matters.

we feel that we are fit to deal with the big questions. this is the highest order of decision making to rid our mindset is that if something is of greatest consequence such as speech, fought, expression, race, identity and sexuality, life and death, it cannot be left to anyone's inside the hours. -- insight than ours. civilian judges have reserved the last word on all consequential matters and so we exercise power over the taking of prisoners and interrogations', conscientious objection, surveillance, military tribunals and so on. there is a structural problem. the legal profession is not

vested. it is a positive virtue that judges are not held accountable for our decisions. in matters of dissent and intelligence, there must be scrupulous accountability if this is pleaded by lawyers, and the judge's rule on them, it is constitutional requirement the flexibility needed in these areas are both technical and moral and it is lost. this has consequences for our law and for the country. this is needed. the branch of our profession the performs at work every day is the judge advocate-general

corporate there are among the best of us. yet, in our delete legal communities, military loitering is dismissed as unworthy -- military loitering -- lawyering is dismissed as unworthy. it is assumed that the lawyer is an anomaly and is performing an act of courage or defiance and is risking retribution. someone as good as we are. thus, they believe that courts martial arts and reports and have offices of high rank and there are no real juries. the uniform code of military justice likes the essential attributes of the process. this is a cartoon. i know little of military

justice. few law students can take courses in this. there are few professors that could teach it knowledgeably if it were in the course work. yet, f. lee bailey observed that the fact is that if i were innocent, i would prefer to stand trial before a military tribunal govern by the uniform code of military justice than by any court, state or federal. it has been announced that service in the military is not pimlico. insulation between the legal elite and the military concedes the best use of our law schools and the civilian legal community is attached by a lawyers and judges in the military. in other times, the military has been a place where people of

different advantages grew up together and came to know which other and trust each other. it must of made a difference on citizens of privilege there were fears of people that have none of his advantages. the privileged learn how to wield influence and had been in the community. too many observation, there was an impact on sentencing. once, judges said that no shared experience with people drawn from a class of people that appeared before sentencing, they could appreciate this strength. judges have known people of advantage.

they had encountered them as members of ranks of and the criminal classes. -- other than criminal class as. i said that war had intensified between the little league and the military. i think that that is why the legal the leak are reluctant to acknowledge a predicament that gives advantages to the military and requires military calculation with military response. the military branches gain influence, decide policy and they have the indispensable in sight and critical experience. they become the hero and willingly. because war elevates military influence in government and policy and constitutional

imperative, it in subordinates are owned and has for the duration. both lawyers and soldiers have indispensable roles in the defense of our constitutional government. our constitution needs both defenses, the internal and external with a certain amount of flexibility and reciprocal accommodation. while some competition is inevitable, the lawyer the leaks makes the competition destructive and constitutional values process of liberty is and civilian control are pressed. it is not surprising that this competition manifests itself most obviously in the ongoing debate this is a matter of

national defense. their arguments live on both sides, but to my observation, the perspective of lawyers promotes the role which the lawyer cast. many lawyers and law professors deny that we are at war. employers have a stake in peacetime and while we all do, and the military most of all, peace is a time when soldiers are contingent asset and lawyers are ascendant. the lawyer has an interest in denying the war or that we are in need of military intervention or expertise for a military point of view that is decisive. competition also manifest itself in pro bono activity and of tax lawyers ideas about what the public good is.

in the fiasco following the 2000 election, i watched on tv idealistic lawyers arguing to election boards that absentee ballots mailed in by those in active suit -- active service abroad should be discarded because of late arrival. maybe the ballots were late and properly disqualified. but i would not have accepted such an advocacy role. the lawyers doing that work would have scorned with discussed the narrowing of voting opportunities of any other group in this country. i suspect that every last one of them would give the right to vote to prevail. by the same token, many inmates of the facility of guantanamo bay find themselves well

represented if not actually over loitered -- lawyered. 50 law firms have advocated on behalf of guantanamo detainees. yet, in some family courts, soldiers are found to be unfit parents because they are being deployed abroad. the defense of guantanamo detainees as has been cast as a courageous act vindicating our profession to protect the accused and despised. many lawyers and judges in the past have had to pay a lot for their acts of conscious. the civil rights movement created models. but it is hardly an act of

courage for lawyers to do the most fashionable thing that a lawyer can do these days, to do so -- if military types were not standing by, they would kill them if they could. [laughter] [applause] my experience is that people cannot fall all over each other for acts of courage. permit me to doubt that the outpouring of legal resources to detainee's party do the -- a duty of the wall street law firms. the main field of struggle between the military and the

legal community has to do with civil liberties. consider the civil liberty litigation that rose when the nation's librarians were required to let the federal government see who had checked out various library books. it was just such an inquiry by the fbi that allow them to defy ted kosinski as the unabomber. that episode excited no anxiety among lawyers. why should it? i remember that every library book had a card that recorded the name of everybody who borrow that book. this controversy was overwrought.

it was with other litigation challenging the country under attack, in wartime, this litigation allowed lawyers to cast themselves in a heroic and dominant role as the real defenders of the constitution. why do lawyers worry? what do we lose when the military rides in to join us in preserving our constitutional system of government? the problem is that the legal establishment and the military are not exactly engaged in the same project. for lawyers, the constitution is often a means to other inns. if i pointed out in an opinion,

constitutional law professors may note the intricate workings of the constitution, but many of them use their technical skills instrumental in, the way that a good safecracker regards a safe. anything that diminishes lawyers the civvy the constitution, undermines the entitlements. whatever the legal merits may be, and i have no trouble approach in such cases on dispassionate merits, but the theater of litigation allows the lawyer cast to set itself up as the true defender of the nation and its people. the more numerous the civil liberties issues, the easier it becomes for litigators, law school clerks, bar committees and some of our associates to present themselves as the

authentic defenders of the constitution and actual opposition to the military and not in actual opposition to law enforcement and intelligence professions that dolly military service and internalize military values. competition with the military is strident. upper caste lawyers should join the other side. culture, values others, we cannot prevail. what is at stake is a great thing. lawyers in the military are in competition for our. the word has lost currency, a concept and has lost none of its potency. the greatest danger for our country is [inaudible]

we question what it should cost and how we allocate resources. strategy, logistics, intelligence, went to check the military and when to mobilize and when to deploy at. all of these are things that i do not know. it does not do to the degree of military life and culture. it is worse to put in charge, civilian leaders that are suspicious proponents of the military just as such powers should never be in the hands of ignorant military groupies. it is not necessary, or

possible, that all law leaders should serve, but i do think that for effective civilian control, it is required only by the management of responsibilities, the weighing of incommensurate values and consequential dahlias. not by the degree of public policy or by journal publication. it cannot be easy to heal the breach between lawyers and the military. whenever cultures merge on common ground, there is puzzlement and recalibration. there is no way to do this.

the law schools need to be unsealed. pro bono activity should be credited by service in the military. [applause] in the judge advocate general corps should be recognized as integral for the common project of justice. those in military service should be recognized by us as peers in the defense of our constitutional republic and the military calls should be understood to be a profession among professions, ancient, hon., ethical, expert and indispensable. thank you for listening to me. [applause]

>> thank you judge jacobs. i think you can tell from the reaction of our audience how impressed that all work and how much they appreciate your thoughts. i would admit they are very much in the spirit of this lecture series. thank you all for coming and our recession will be directly across the hall -- our reception

will be directly across the hall. thank you. [applause]

c-spa [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> all men have agreed to give some and they give up power, even though they may give it up for principle reasons, they

hanker for it the moment they give it up. >> in his award winning trilogy, edmund morris examine the final years of theodore roosevelt's life including his run for president. >> live, this weekend, joined sebastian younker, salman rushdie, meighen mccain and others as we had to be 27 and annual book fair international. live all weekend on2 on's "booktv." >> listen to landmark court cases saturday on c-span radio. >> women are still not able to receive abortions from licensed doctors because doctors still fear that they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> this week, part 2 of the roe v wade. it is still one of the most controversial supreme court

decisions. listen on c-span radio, nationwide on xm 132, an online at c-span radio.org. >> topics at today's state department briefing included u.s. efforts to jump-start stalled middle eastern peace talks. other issues were the imprisonment of loggers and talks on a round and north korea's nuclear program for the this is 30 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. just a little bit on the week ahead. the secretary will be back late tomorrow night, and then in terms of our briefings here next week, i anticipate that we will brief monday, tuesday, and perhaps early on wednesday, but we will not brief on

thanksgiving day or the day after -- thanksgiving day, as everyone enjoys turkey or other holiday fixings. and only to begin by reinforcing the secretary's day in portugal, as you saw this morning, she had a bilateral with portuguese foreign minister amado, chaired the u.s.-eu energy council, reviewing opportunities for the united states and europe to closely coordinate policies, create economic opportunities around the energy sector, and ensure energy security and diverse sources of energy in the future. she had a meeting with president karzai in anticipation of the significant focus on afghanistan that will come through the nato summit. then she has joined the

president for his meetings with portuguese leaders attending the north atlantic council meeting, and i think shortly the president will have a bilateral with georgian president saakashvili. and then tonight, before she completes her day in lisbon, she'll have a working dinner with nato foreign ministers. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> wow. >> it's a sunny friday in washington, d.c. >> well, i hesitate to ask this question because the answers that i've been getting to it for the last two years have been incredibly unsatisfying, but i guess i have to anyway. what's the latest in the -- what are the latest developments in your attempt to get the israelis to re-impose a settlement freeze and get the peace talks started? >> i believe we remain in contact with the israelis, with the palestinians. david hale is in the region and has had contact today and will tomorrow with counterparts in jordan and egypt. but beyond that, i've got no other activity to point to

today. >> has he been able to tell the palestinians anything about where the process stands with the israelis? >> we are keeping the palestinians informed of our discussions with the israelis. >> right. but has he had actually anything to tell them? >> our conversations with the israelis continue and our conversations with the palestinians continue. >> we're quoting an israeli official in a story from jerusalem as saying that the administration is reluctant to put into writing some of the commitments that secretary clinton orally gave to prime minister netanyahu in new york. is that true? >> well, we continue our discussions with the israelis. if there's a need to put certain understandings in writing, we will be prepared to do that. do that? >> well, there's a process that's ongoing, but beyond that, i will not comment.

>> see, i don't understand something. you said if there's a need to do it. but it seems that there is a need if the cabinet won't approve all the measures you're looking them to without some assurances in writing. >> this is not unusual in negotiations that if there are understandings that need to be codified in writing, we're fully prepared to do that. >> then why can't you take the next step and say that you're doing that if it does appear, by all public accounts, that you do need to do that? [laughter.] >> and i said we're prepared to do that. >> well, i just don't understand in the process of doing that. >> we are still having discussions with the israelis to encourage them to return to direct negotiations and to create the conditions for a direct negotiation to resume. if, as part of this process we need to write certain things down, we will. >> would you prefer not to? >> i -- we're happy to.

there's no mystery here. there's been public conjecture about a letter for several days. we've not denied that that is something that we're prepared to do. >> well -- >> we haven't commented on it either. >> there's no mystery here. the entire thing is a mystery. [laughter.] >> anyway, go ahead. >> what about the offer that was given -- >> i'm not going to go into the deal. >> well, the feeling around town that it was really too excessive and too generous for a freeze for 90 days. is there a feeling in the state department that it may have been a bit too excessive? >> well, you're presuming something that i can't comment on, but i would just caution you that, as always, reports that involve certain specifics, some of them may be true, some of them are not true. and i can't comment about which is which. this iimportant to the region. it is important to our national security. it's important to the future of

israel and a prospective palestinian state. how do you put a price tag on that? we are interested in doing what needs to be done to see a two- state solution. that is something that goes beyond a particular price tag on a particular set of actions. this is in the interest of the region. it's in the interest of israel. it's in the interest ofhe palestinian people. and we, the united states, are going to do everything that we can to move this to a successful agreement. >> general powell expressed a bit of dismay that what do settlements have to do with an f-35. i mean, should he be dismayed? what is the connection between the freezing the settlements and 20 -- >> well, i mean, general powell knows as well as anyone that inherent in this, the calculations that these leaders will make, is concern about

security. and these are ultimately political decisions that are made and they have to involve reassuring the population in israel and the population in the palestinian territory that not only is an agreement in their interest, but they are getting something of value from this process. but ultimately, it will be up to prime minister netanyahu and president abbas to look at what is on the table and determine that this is in the best interest of their people. we believe earnestly that what we are putting forward as part of this process is definitely in their immediate and long- term interest. and we hope that they will, in turn, be able to convince their governments and their people to continue this process. >> one last issue. the palestinians claim that

every time they attempt to exercise anything akin to independence or would suggest that they are pursuing the sort of declaration of a state, that you guys stop them. and they cite little modest steps in mexico city and other places, un agencies, all across the map. could you comment on that? >> well, we have been in a direct negotiation. we've made clear and the leaders themselves have agreed that this direct negotiation is the best path to reach an agreement that will yield security, prosperity,nd a two-state solution. and that continues to be our view, and we think that is a view that is shared by prime minister netanyahu and president abbas. >> p.j., are you ready to give the israelis guarantees that after 90 days, you won't ask them to renew the moratorium again and that the freeze doesn't include jerusalem? >> michel, again, i'm not going to get into particulars. if you think back to --

>> particulars? >> well, if you think back, though -- for example, the -- as the secretary has said, the moratorium that did run for 10 months did not include east jerusalem. it was something that initially was discounted, but as the process evolved, became something of great value and is something that the palestinians have indicated publicly they want to see renewed. we are trying to create the conditions for a resumption of the direct negotiations. we have -- we continue conversations with both sides and we hope that from these conversations will yield the conditions that will allow both sides to indicate a willingness to resume direct negotiations. that is -- in terms of what it will take, that is something that we're still trying to determine.

>> the israelis are in need for these guarantees to resume negotiations? >> i'm sorry, what? >> the israelis are in need for these guarantees regarding jerusalem and -- >> well, again, these are decisions that the leaders have to make now. and if we are successful in convincing the governments to resume negotiations, these will be judgments that will have to be made during the course of the process. i'm not getting into particulars. we want to get them back into the negotiations. we're trying to create the conditions to allow that to occur. >> p.j., the original 10-month freeze only became something of great value because you were -- you ended up being forced to pressure the palestinians to accept it. is that not correct? they made it -- it wasn't everything that they wanted. >> again, i can't speak for president abbas or prime

minister netanyahu. we are -- we want to encourage them to resume the negotiations -- >> understood, but -- >> -- and they will be the ones that determine -- >> let's look back. >> -- whether to do that. and as -- if we were able to resume the negotiations, that sufficient progress is being made to enable those negotiations to continue. >> but looking back at august when the direct talks -- the only reason the palestinians came back or agreed to go into the direct negotiations -- because you told them to. so this thing that you say that was of great value, that was discounted at first, it was also discounted by you at first. >> well -- >> i mean, the u.s. position at the beginning was that all settlement activity had to stop. they said, "okay, we'll stop it for 10 months in the west bank, but not east jersualem." you got on board with that, and because you got on board with it, that became some -- that you pushed the palestinians to accept it. and that's why it became something of great value, no? >> i'm -- well, again, the --

we're just trying to get the parties back into negotiations and that remains our -- >> all right. and then my last one on this -- >> -- earnest and intensive effort. >> what does it -- my last one -- what does it say about the state of u.s.-israeli relations that the israeli government, which is the -- your top ally in the region and the beneficiary of billions and billions of dollars in aid over the last 60 years is demanding written guarantees, that a verbal assurance from the secretary of state of the united states isn't good enough for them? >> again, it is -- matthew, you have been around the state department for a long time. it is part of the regular order that as you are going through negotiations, that certain details of those negotiations are written down, and that happens every day in relationships between the united states and any other country. >> all right. i said that was my last one, but i lied, because i do have more. [laughter.]

and that is, why is it until today no one was willing to say publicly that you were agreeing to -- that you were going to write this stuff down? what has changed in the course -- since the weekend, what has changed over the course of this week that you are now willing to stand up here and say, "yes, we're willing to put these things in writing." whereas before it was, "oh, we're not going to comment on the play by play, and we're not going to talk anything of substance" even though -- >> it's the pluckiness of the media in this room. >> what -- has anything changed in the process, in the discussions that you're now willing to say this? whereas, even yesterday, your able replacement was -- >> if i spill out all the news every single day, what in the world will you have to write about? >> so we -- >> p.j., can you tell us who the conversations are with? the only -- i think you've described ambassador hale as having conversations with his jordanian counterpart. i mean, who are you talking to [inaudible] the israelis? >> i happen not to know, but

i'm sure it's someone within the -- >> can you find out? >> i'll ask david. >> you have been talking about this plan. this is plan a. but i've come to understand in the last two days there has been a drastic changeover being discussed about a plan b. would you like to spill the beans? [laughter.] >> good luck. >> i would caution you. we have a plan a. we think it's a good plan a. we're focused on plan a. we're not focused on plan b. >> so what is -- so there is a plan b. you're not focused on it. >> there is a plan b, as you said. i'm just repeating what you said. >> i'm not encouraging you to think along those lines. >> [inaudible] burma? >> please. [laughter.] oh, burma. >> at least for one more sec, please. we have a lengthy story out of

the region today that describes a series of recent instances where the u.s. government has opposed -- >> that was already asked. >> was it? >> yeah. >> no, this is -- what are you talking about? >> i think he asked that question. >> what about the -- >> -- about declarations -- anyway, go ahead. >> well, can you address why it is that the administration does not wish to see even small steps toward recognition of the palestinian authority as a participating member in international fora? if i email you the story, will you just email me back a comment? >> you can give the same answer you did when the question was asked the first time if you want. >> well, we've been asked this question a number of times. in the context of the peace

process, we have encouraged both sides to avoid steps which are perceived as undermining the negotiation. and so some of the public statements made in recent days by palestinian officials about taking issues to the united nations, which, in essence, would preempt the direct negotiations that we believe are the best route to a two- state solution. that remains our view and that -- what is the view that we continue to express to both sides. >> on burma, has secretary clinton called the burmese leader aung san suu kyi, because a lot of world leaders have been making telephone calls to her? >> i won't rule out that at a point the secretary will do that. she has sent a personal letter

to aung san suu kyi in recent days. we've had direct discussions with her and our chargé in burma. but as you can -- the secretary was on an extensive trip, is now traveling again. but i would anticipate that at some point she may well reach out to aung san suu kyi. >> and the un -- >> did the chargé deliver the letter? >> yeah. >> excellent. >> at the un [inaudible] committee yesterday, there was a resolution passed on burma human rights violation in which u.s. supported it. and the key countries in the region, like india, china, vietnam, voted against the resolution. thailand, indonesia abstained on it. so do you think u.s. and your allies are isolated as far as those countries in the region are concerned on the situation? >> well, this is something that we have and will continue to talk to other countries in the region, particularly countries that have relationships with burma, and with the government

there. and we believe there needs to be a strong, unified, firm message that there needs to be change in burma. the election that just happened is not part of the change that we think is necessary. we didn't see that as legitimate. we don't think that aung san suu kyi should have been detained in any event. but now that she has been released, she should maintain the right to communicate if she sees fit, to meet with her advisors as she sees fit, reconstitute her party as she sees fit. we place a special responsibility on the government of burma to guarantee her safety as she goes about these steps, which we think are critical to burma's future.

ultimately, burma has to change. it has to have greater political space. it has to have a meaningful dialogue with other ethnic groups. that's the only way that burma's going to be able to move away from its current isolation. but this is a conversation that we have had with china, with india, with other countries, and we will continue that conversation. >> and finally -- >> can you give us [inaudible] what's in the letter? i assume it's more than a congratulatory letter. >> i can't. >> okay. >> [off-mike.] >> sure. >> egyptian officials have responded basically with contempt to your call for allowing international monitors. do you have any comment on that? >> well, i commented on this yesterday. we have made our position clear in terms of the steps that have to occur inside egypt for us to have confidence in a credible result coming out of the elections at the end of this month.

we've called on a robust domestic observation of this election. and in fact, over the years, we have contributed to egyptian civil society to build up capability for meaningful oversight of egyptian elections. we believe that egypt will put itself in the strongest position possible by acceding to international norms and ensuring that there is international represenentation s well. so we did hear egypt's response, but we haven't changed our view. >> question on iran. yesterday the fifth fleet issued a statement describing the rescue of the u.s. navy -- the rescue by the u.s. navy of two iranian sailors in the gulf region. i want to get your reactions to that. i also wanted to ask about --

>> be clear. my reaction to? >> to --well, to the operation itself, and specifically, i guess, the details i want you to provide are how communication between the u.s. navy and -- they were ultimately picked up by an iranian coast guard ship. was this done through the swiss or -- >> i'm familiar with a statement that was put out by military officials in manama, in which case they were aware of two iranian sailors that were adrift in the gulf and they were able to rescue them, and then they alerted iran through -- i believe oman was it. and then arrangements were made for the transfer from the u.s. ship to the iranian ship. it is something that we do on the high seas all the time. whenever we -- our sailors and

sailors of navies around the world -- they respond to distress calls regardless of politics. we were happy to do this, and i believe that there was a gesture of thanks provided by the iranian government, and that's what we do. >> also on iran? >> yeah. >> is there anything new on the attempt to get them back to the table? >> no response at this point. >> what was the gesture of thanks? >> i actually think that the -- i think i'm aware that the iranian governmentimply acknowledged its gratitude for the rescue. >> anything new on the hikers? anything new on the hikers? have you heard whether they'll be released? >> i'm not aware that we have heard anything directly, no. >> on iran, yesterday you said that you are open to turkey option forhis negotiation.

but gary samore from white house made a statement, and he said turkey is not possible because you don't see turkey as a neutral venue, because they vote against the sanctions and -- >> who said that? >> gary samore from white house. >> well, i'll just repeat what i said. we have advised iran that the first meeting should happen perhaps in austria or in switzerland, but we are, in fact, open to a subsequent meeting being in turkey. >> okay. so is there -- there's no problem from your view about turkey that they vote against the sanctions? >> well, again, let me be clear. we are seeking a first meeting. we are then seeking the beginning of a process. we'll see what iran comes to the table prepared to do. but should there be subsequent meetings, we would not rule out that those meetings could

happen at a variety locations, and that would include turkey. david. >> p.j., the azerbaijani government released bloggers whose case had been taken up by both the president and secretary of state. your reaction? also they -- although they released them, they didn't overturn their convictions, and is that a relevant -- >> sure. we welcome the early release of -- let me start again. we welcome the early release of azerbaijani youth leaders and bloggers adnan hajizade and emin milli. we hope for a speedy release of editor eynulla fatullayev as well. we closely monitor the trial and sentencing of the bloggers. both president obama and secretary clinton publicly

called for their release. the united states remains committed to working with the government and people of azerbaijan to advance democratic reforms, including freedom of expression and association. >> are you disappointed that the criminal charge wasn't expunged? >> as you can tell, we have followed these cases closely. we will continue to follow them closely, and we will continue to work on these issues with the government of azerbaijan. >> isis released a satellite image yesterday of a construction site in north korea, which makes it a bigger possibility that the north koreans are creating a light- water reactor. how will this impact future six-party talks? and given that the u.s. has already sanctioned north korea pretty strictly, what other specific pressures can the u.s. apply? >> well, as we have said all along, we want to see north korea take affirmative steps toward denuclearization. it has to demonstrate a willingness to meet its

international obligations and, in fac follow commitments that it has made under the 2005 joint statement. if north korea takes the kinds of steps that we've outlined, we're prepared to respond accordingly. but what north korea needs to understand is that it cannot have its cake and eat it too. it continues to act in a way that presumes that it can have a nuclear program and it can have normal relations with the rest of the world, including the united states. this is really an either-or proposition. if it wishes to have normal relations with the united states it is going to have to give up its nuclear programs. >> if it's either-or, what moves left does the u.s. have? >> well, the ball is in north korea's court. and to the extent that it continues to pursue nuclear programs, then that is going to have an effect on the prospect of better relations with the united states.

if it follows its commitments and if it meets its international obligations then the door opens to a different kind of relationship. >> p.j., i don't understand. they have to give up their -- all of their nuclear programs? i mean, part of the deal was that you were going to help them with light-water reactors. >> well, but -- and if they take affirmative steps to denuclearize, we are prepared to have a conversation about how to meet north korea's legitimate energy needs. but it has to follow through on the commitments that it's made under the 2005 joint statement. >> so they are not allowed -- you're not -- you're saying that they are not allowed at the moment to pursue even a civilian nuclear energy? >> well, and the fact is that -- >> which is what a light-water reactor would -- >> and the fact is that that's the crux of the issue that in its nuclear programs north korea is not pursuing a civilian nuclear program by itself. it is a proliferator. it has a military program. that military program poses a

danger to the region and to the rest of the world. north korea has made a commitment to denuclearize, and we expect north korea to live up to its commitments. >> p.j., does the u.s. government have a view now on whether what ambassador pritchard and dr. hecker have described as the beginnings of a light-water reactor at -- being built at yongbyon is indeed a -- the beginnings of a light-water reactor being built at yongbyon and not an ice skating rink or something else? i mean, do you have a view on this or not? >> well, we are sorting through the information that they have provided us. >> but do you not -- have you not achieved a judgment yet, or you have achieved a judgment -- arrived at a judgment and you just can't share it with us? >> i'm -- there's a limit to what i can share. >> thank you. >> all right, hold on. >> p.j., ambassador pritchard said north korea wants to build

a light-water reactor for power generation by 2012. >> right. >> so do you think their intentions are credible? >> well, but again, the first step in this process is that north korea has to take affirmative steps to denuclearize, and it's because its nuclear programs up to this point pose a very severe proliferation risk to the region and to the world. we are prepared to have a discussion with north korea on how to meet its energy requirements, but north korea has to take affirmative steps denuclearize first. >> thank you. >> this weekend, house democratic whip james clyburn on

how democrats view their role in the 112th congress which begins in january. here is a look. >> everybody needs to step back one step. you have been chair, so go back to being chair. you have been with, so go back to being with. you go back to being leader. that was not a tactic to me. i thought that things that i have learned out there could be put to great use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. because i do believe that we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican conference. there are at 21-22 latinos that make up the hispanic caucus.

we have african-americans. we have blue dots. -- blue august dogs. all of this was a recipe i thought i had learned a lot about, and they really could bring discussions to that table in a way is that would limit me if i were chair of the caucus. >> the rep was elected wednesday to the new position of assistant minority leader for the new congress, maintaining his no. 3 spot in the leadership. you can see the full interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on "newsmakers." >> like all men of great gifts, when they given up power, even though they may give it up for principled reasons, they begin

to hanker for it to the moment they give it up. >> and edward morris examines the final years of theodore roosevelt's life, including his old run for president. old run for president. >> this weekend, a prominent historians give a perspective on the civil war. coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv, telling the american story every week and only on c-span 3. >> earmarked account for less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget, and they are part of the agenda for the upcoming congress. find out what earmarked are at the c-span library. hear the argument for and against them. it is washington your way. >> next, a discussion on different actions the president can takeho