but it was all the markers to suggest that it was a very high- qaedatarget in the al universe, and it was likely bin laden, given the compound, the number of individuals, the fact was travelingidocourier back and forth. they did not know for sure if it was bin laden in the compound. even though we did so much good work to get to that point, still, at the end of the day, it was not clear until we executed the target, that it was bin laden in the house. host: mike in new york, new york. caller: what happens if we find out pakistani intelligence was

involved in harboring bin laden? what kind of actions could we actually take? it is a great question. one of the strategic aftershocks of this question is the deepening question between the relationships of the u.s. and pakistan. the whole thing with raymond davis enflamed relations with the u.s. and pakistan the president did not pre-notify the pakistanis, demonstrating a lack of trust in terms of the operational safety. but if we find there were elements of the pakistani intelligence service, or military -- and i think the evidence suggests that we may find some degree of that.

this will be a crisis moment for the relationship. that said, the administration is doing two things. they are providing breathing space for pakistan to save face publicly. they are not being overly harsh. they are allowing some wiggle room for the pakistanis to address this. but behind the scenes, you become extremely tough in your lines, and demands, delivering on other al qaeda leaders, taliban leaders in pakistan. frankly, holding the money that we have allocated for pakistan over their heads. we have to be real allies here, but if we continue to find these egregious cases of complicity, we are going to not only have to cut off funding, but some other harsh thing that you may not

like. at some point, we need to have that conversation. no doubt, the administration is preparing for that. host: the pakistani president to address parliament on the bin laden raid. this being reported by the bbc. in this address to the pakistani parliament, what does the prime minister have to say in order to reassure his people that his folks did not know that bin laden was there? and what does he say in this thing that reassures the united

states that they did not know and were not cooperating with bin laden? guest: this is a tricky high wire act for president colodngi. ani. first of all, they failed to control american overreach, which is ever sent there. -- sacrosanct over there. military services are held in pretty high esteem, considered a pillar of the state. in particular, with respect to india. one of the consideration for pakistan is, not only does it show a lack of ability to defend ourselves, not just from the u.s., potentially india, but also demonstrates a failure of

intelligence. bin laden was at the compound, but you could imagine indian intelligence officers of the compound during the fairest things, from a pakistani standpoint. so galani will have to assure the public that they will fix whatever went wrong. he will also have to demonstrate that there is resolved against the united states. these kinds of incursions' will not be allowed again. we heard this from the military last week. finally, he will have to measure his tone. to the extent that he comes out too bellicose or nationalistic against the united states, it will not play out well against the capital. it appears that the pakistanis were either completed or blatantly incompetent in terms of discovering bin laden in

their midst, for five years. host: the pakistani ambassador was on abc this week. this is what he had to say about bin laden's whereabouts. >> if any member of the intelligence service near where he was, we would have taken action. presence inaden's pakistan was not to pakistan's advantage. guest: i respect the ambassador quite a bit. i have dealt with him before certainly, that is the tape that senior leaders in pakistan have. the trouble is, the isi have longstanding ties to the taliban. they have longstanding ties to groups that are tied to al qaeda. so the elements of the intelligence service, both

current and retired, have relations with al qaeda. so in some ways they play a double game that hurts the u.s. and the pakistani people. there is a pakistani calculus of needing to hedge their bets, u.s., india. the key question here is whether there is some element within pakistani intelligence or military that knew about this, that established a network to support bin laden for five years. host: juan zarate is our guest. former national security adviser for counterterrorism in the bush administration. currently, the traditional

threats project senior adviser at the center for strategic and international studies. brooklyn, new york. eileen. caller: i just have a few comments. fromed not too far kennedy airport. i remember around 9/11, as airplanes were going up and down, there was the feeling, is this just a normal airplane? after a while, things got better. have never, i understand that this happened during the obama presidency, but i am so proud of everyone in the surface, everyone who put this together in counterintelligence. this also goes back to george bush, whom i greatly admire. these are two fears that i have. i know we had to take him out,

but i get upset that the public and, particularly, the print media wants to -- so much the formation. we are not safe, we are far from safe. to just be enthusiastic about the death of this enthusiastic leader is very foolish. i think we have to watch out. there are others right below him who are getting ready. i saw the riots and protests in london, screaming about getting rid of america and killing us all. i think very highly of the counter-terrorism people. yes, we have to know some things -- but for example, two of the headlines in the new york papers.

i never thought i would be saying this kind of thing, but it is horrific to make fun of something like this. he is a horrific person. i am glad that we caught him, but we have to be totally on our guard and be careful about how much information gets released which could aid our enemies. host: before mr. zarate responds, as the airplanes are going in and out of kennedy, do you feel more comfortable? caller: yes, i do. when i look out at night, i see them in the sky and i think of them as satellites, things that are protecting the shoreline. i love our country. i have our old values. i want the country to continue to do well, get rid of this

horrific debt, start bringing things back to america. guest: great comments. i think one of the interesting things about this situation is it has demonstrating an element of continuity between both administrations in a way that you have not seen before. the obama administration came in wanting to change a counter- terrorism policy, but i had been predicting more continuity. a lot of the key officials that they have relied on were bush administration and key officials. a lot of my friend were a part of this and i am proud of them. we demonstrated our persistence on this problem, the intelligence members, and they stayed on it and finally got it.

incredible pride, i think, in the special operations community. all of those special forces that have done remarkable work, not just in this case, but in iraq, afghanistan. a community that is extraordinarily valuable to us. i used to be a counter-terrorism official, but now i am on the other side. one of the thing that the administration is trying to do with what they are putting out -- we are getting some this weekend, maybe more. they are trying to undercut the image of the bin laden as a warrior. they are trying to undercut his image, in part, to go after the ideology of al qaeda. for counterterrorism officials, this is the start of a campaign to break the back of al qaeda leadership. we heard the president talked about this last night. some of the messaging coming out

is not to fulfill the needs of the media and for all of us to know more, but also a message campaign to say this is not the man you thought he was. this is not a move that was once as dangerous as it was. we are going to destroy it. by the way, we have more and we are -- we have more in the back pocket and we're coming after you. host: in his interview on abc sunday morning, tom donovan talks about going after ayman al-zawahri, but in doing that we still may not tell pakistan we have targeted him and may have to come again, across the border to get him. guest: if it is the most interesting, immediate problem regarding pakistani relations. if we have intelligence on the air apparent, the egyptian

doctor, or others, do we tell the pakistanis? or do we do it in a way that allows them to save face and repair the relationship? i would expect the latter. allow a beginning of the repairing of the relationship. the challenge there is, do we trust them fully? this is sensitive information. for example, we send special forces across the border again. are they going to be put in harm's way? all of that is part of the calculus. host: we want to let our viewers and listeners know that we are monitoring the speech of the prime minister that we mentioned earlier, prime minister galani.

we are showing some of that now, courtesy of al jazeera. if he makes any news, we will bring it to you. back to the phones -- actually, let's take a look at twitter. guest: i think this is the challenge for pakistan. frankly, the pakistani leadership uses this with the u.s. to say you do not want instability in pakistan. you do not want what is coming behind us, which could be a more extreme element in the pakistani government'. the challenge for the united states is, you have to have a relationship with pakistan.

at the same time, you have to be demanding of and pakistan ally which has received billions in u.s. aid over the years. there is a challenge their but we need to see a stable pakistan. without that, you have to instability in afghanistan, india, southeast asia. host: actually saying that we may go after ayman al-zawahri, does that make things more dangerous, for us at home, or does that further separate him from his al qaeda membership? guest: they already know it. if there is an attack under way, they are training for it. as we are starting to see in some of these documents, they were starting to gear certain attacks on anniversaries.

generally, they launch attacks when they are ready. so i do not think it creates a danger. i think it plays into the psychology of the war on terror. you are tried to mess with the mind of the enemy. putting out bits and pieces of information that may make them nervous, may force them into making mistakes. ultimately, we will find these guys if they make a mistake inadvertently. host: we are moving into vacation season. do you expect al qaeda will be putting out stock to mess with u.s. minds? guest: first, i think they need to worry about succession. they have not yet announced who the successor is. usually, you see that when they put out the eulogy for the person who died. presumably, it would be ayman al-zawahri.

interestingly, they did not say that. that suggests to me that there are still internal divisions within the senior leadership. ayman al-zawahri is not well- liked, is not charismatic, and has an alienated some of the other leaders. second, they may not have had a chance to get together to communicate. part of the challenge is getting the remaining leadership together and communicate to make a decision. they may be having a hard time doing just that. al qaeda will be worried about its survival, a succession in the first instance. what we have to worry about our reprisals from those who are already in the field, perhaps ongoing plots. of secondly, lone wolves. people that are angry, take matters into their own hands. homeland

host: our next call comes from vienna, va., just outside of washington, d.c. thank you for reading. caller: i served 30 years in the military and in vietnam. i do follow security matters. my giro question -- my general question, and i have a few points to substantiated, is how many have interest in following up on osama bin laden followed upon the failure of bora bora? me like this guest to tell if there is anything wrong with these facts. bora bora, we did not follow him. then i think it was in late 2002

when bush was interviewed and he said he did not know where bin laden was in the did not care. in 2005, he disbanded the cia intelligence unit hunting for bin laden. when he left the presidency in late 2007-2008, he did not seem to care about not finding of some of bin laden. host: we believe it there. i want to answer this report that says their intelligence services have insisted they shared a confirmation about bin laden's compound two years ago with their american character parts. guest: i did not know if pakistan shared information. they may have shared information ancillary to the compound, but i am not aware of anything they shared that would have pointing

-- would have pointed to this compound be and where bin laden was. i can neither confirm nor deny that. his question is an important one. what was it revealed in this operation in understanding how this came about is a revelation that we did not lose sight of bin laden as a goal. this administration points to the work done in the prior administration to get to this point. i was in the white house from 2005-2009 and this was a top priority for me dealing with this issue. i will tell you we did not lose sight of this. this was a key goal of ours, not just because of the symbolism but because we knew that he was still operationally relevant, which is now coming down given the documents that have been found. he was an important figure for the global movement. bora bora was a big mistake. if we had a do over there, the

leaders would have put more troops on the ground to assure that we had killed bin laden and a sure he did not escape. we allowed him to escape which led to a lot of years of frustrated hunting. i but not take the lack of progress as a symbol that we were not trying. a lot of the starts and stops during the time between 2002- 2007 there about one of started to get more leads was really a dry hole. we were falling all sorts of leads possible. the unit at the cia was disbanded and that did not mean that we did not have enormous resources looking at this. as you read some of the reporting out in "the new york times" and other publications, the cia was involved in the other opportunities to get more intelligence on the ground in pakistan to the dust of the point where he was found, captured, or killed. host: juan zarate is the

transitional threats senior adviser. that is a mouthful. what do you do? guest: it is one of the main think tanks in town. i hope that the transnational threat project which looks out of the three strands nationally that are a concern, organized crime -- which looks at all the transnational concerns. right now, one of the things we are working on, and this is a fascinating time to be doing this, but it is a steady that will come out on the future about qaeda and its related movements. -- the future of the al qaeda and its related movements. is a very different organization in 2011 than it was after 9/11. and has metastasized, the rise of affiliates in places like yemen and africa, unaffiliated

individuals that are radicalized but not necessarily trained by al qaeda. i call it the al qaeda hydra. we emphasize the core elements of the bin laden and al- zawahiri, as it remains critical to the cohesiveness of this movement, and to the extent that we can get rid of bin laden and al-zawahiri, you are doing a great service in this tantalizing this. -- in dismantling this. we can start imagining that now. host: last week in "the baltimore sun, they had this story by brian bennett. what is the shelf life of the information that the navy seal team was able to extract from the compound? how long before some of the

things that they come back actually changing and we will not be able to act on them? guest: great question. there will be categories of data, some information that is actionable now and will only be used in the next couple of weeks. addresses, phone numbers that will likely to not be relevant because al qaeda members will relocate. there is a shelf life to some of the data. some of the data will tell you more about ongoing operations that are still being in the training, network building, financing, other elements that will be useful for a longer period of time. then there will be an entire suite of information, an encyclopedia, that will tell us a lot about the organization in the past, in the recent present, and in the future as bin laden was conceiving it. that information will be valuable for years to come because will fill a lot of the gaps that we had, and lack of understanding as to why they

were doing certain things, how they operated, where their network is. this treasure trove will service not only in the weeks and months to come but in the years to come in understanding this number can ultimately dismantling it. host: gainesville, va., you are on with juan zarate. caller: are in a first-time caller. just to disclose, i have spent a lot of my life in the subcontinent in this specifically, my comments and questions may be a little biased. after all this happened, and i hate to say this because i am sure you have heard this 8 million times, but when everything was going on, even up until the cargo wars, people on the subcontinent had been screaming and shorting and saying a lot of the terrorism was originating from pakistan.

even in the mumbai attacks and all of the casualties are happening, and a former terrorism, whether it is one death for thousands of debt is horrible and terrible. in terms of foreign policy, i find it a bit hypocritical in terms of if it happens in a different country, it happened somewhere else that their device is to have strengthened because, but what happens to the citizens of the united states, it ends up that we will go to war with this country and we will do whatever it takes. in that region, which is very unstable because of the dynamics of the power sharing, i would like to think that india would be a very, very strong ally in the terms of having a sense of stability, economic stability.

i would really like a comment as to why that has been ignored for such a long period of time. host: sorry to cut you off, gainesville, virginia and. guest: we appreciate the differences in perspective of terrorism and how it affects different countries. that is something to always keep in mind. the concept of india, one of the challenges with pakistan is that they have grown weary of the growing strategic relationship that the united states has built with india. many foreign policy experts will tell you that one of the achievements of the bush administration in the international realm had been to reconsider their relationship with india, build that up not only on the nuclear side, but also with counter-terrorism. something that i wanted to see when i was in the white house were those deeper ties with the world's largest democracy, to have those relationships.

month and will know is that i wrote a piece in "the washington post" is that one thing many to be concerned about the fact that terrorism can serve as a flash point for a greater conflict. between india and pakistan, we have been on the verge of war because of two terror strikes in 2002 and in mumbai. if another attack were to happen significant enough on indian territory, the killing of indian civilians, and there is enough of the sense that the pakistan citizens have not done enough, that could have served as a flash point. we will see a trial in chicago, david hedley, involved with one of the groups in pakistan, that trial will start shortly. part of the trial will involve the pakistanis involvement.

this will be seen as aggravating in the context of india validating their views of what has been happening in islamabad. host: our next call comes from bergen county, new jersey for juan zarate. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, military monday. you are very, very informed. i would like to know but what is going on with this pilot. he was started in 2005 near an airport base. two witnesses spotted him and got his license plate. i believe that he is in charge right now. he was the second or third in line. i do not hear anyone talking about him. we need to know what is going on with these terrorists. i believe that osama bin laden

has been dead for a long time. i do not believe he was killed just recently. i believe that this pilot has been ruling their roost for the last couple of years. i would like to know where the intelligence is on hand. host: what is your evidence that bin laden was not killed when the administration said he was? caller: i can tell that is the same person when i watch the video is. i am no longer naive. i read everything. not many people not even know about this pilot. you might even find his name anywhere unless you read a world that daily. no one knows about the people in california who spotted him near the military base which is where the weapons taste -- weapons testing. two times they spotted and reported him. you'll never find that. you have to read about it.

the townspeople in pakistani both said that osama bin laden was not living there. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: i could not agree more. there was no interest in the bush administration on this one to make something like this up. it would be to any administration's political benefit, as we are seeing now, to have announced the death of bin laden. one of the things i walked away from the white house with was a deep, deep sadness -- deep dissatisfaction that we had not been able to find and kill bin laden. that was a failure for me as a senior counter-terrorism official. i would not have loved anything more than to have been able to help the president help the country declared that we had killed bin laden. it would have been strategically important so we would not have seen a metastasizing of the movement under his leadership and the symbol of his

leadership. i could not disagree more. i encourage you to keep reading, but i would be careful of what you believe on the internet. it was completely in our interests to announce his death sooner than later. any notion that he was kept in a closet or killed a long time ago is not true. i believe the administration when they talk about not only the dna evidence but the facial recognition, i witnessed testimony of his wives who were there, and the al qaeda announcement talking that has that's just recently. you do not have to believe us. you can believe al qaeda. i would encourage you to look at some of the other evidence. ok. host: we are showing some video right now of bin laden. there are no dates on this or anything, but the color of his beard seems to change every time we go to a different picture. that may be where some of this is coming from. is it just that he was a vain

that type of guy and wanted to darken his beard? guest: that is what we are finding with some of the documents. before he had a really dark beard and people were laughing because it looked funny. it looked like he would die this before -- dye before his various statements. the last video we had seen was 2007. he had put out audio messages, but not nvidia. the address -- audio but not video. that may address the caller's question. the pilot is now part of al qaeda in the middle circle. he will be an important with kashmiri. there are still senior leaders on the bench including those in

an iranian custody that will be a part of the next stages of what i think the administration will do to go after al qaeda. host: a quick comment on this headline. his voter will not be released. they would not in sight additional violence if the images emerged of others killed. your thoughts on whether or not the pictures should be released. guest: i think it is a good decision but a hard decision. and in the age of wikileaks, it is hard to keep this data confined for too long. part of the problem, too, is you will still have people with down's, like the previous caller. without seeing some evidence, you have trouble. the administration wants to control the narrative. they do not want gory images tainting the moral high ground in terms of killing the world's most notorious terrorist leader. host: in the terms of safety,

does it make us safer and in the u.s.? guest: i think it does come especially right in the wake of the killing. it makes sense not to put something out that what inside the people to use as a tipping point for those who are emotionally engaged to actually take violent actions on to themselves. host: scott on our line for independents, you are on with juan zarate. caller: if the navy seals had gone into the compound and bin laden not have been there, what would that have done it with our relationship to pakistan? guest: a great question. i think it would have been incredibly damaging to the relationship if we had gone in and it was just an innocent party. that was part of the risk involved. not only did we not know for sure whether or not he was there, but we were not sure if

the operation would have been successful. if the pakistani troops in the region reacted and we had got into a firefight with them, that could have been, ultimately, -- it could have destroyed the relationship. now there is a very tense relationship, but it is made much less so by the fact that bin laden was there. great justification on all parts. the president said he would send troops across the border if we found him. it is very possible the pakistanis can get too upset about having the world's most wanted man found 35 miles from their capital. the fact that he was their tempers the reaction a bit. if he had not been there or if it had been an innocent party and we sent navavy seals that fr into

>> in a few moments, john boehner addresses the economic club of new york. after that, tea party activists criticize john boehner and health care law. then joe biden and hillary clinton address concerns about human rights in china. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. protecting the privacy of smart phones and other technology. witnesses will include representatives of google and apple. also at 10:00 eastern on c- span, and talk with senators about the coast guard budget request for the next fiscal year.

later on c-span3, at 3:30 p.m., president obama will be in el paso, texas, for a speech on immigration, the economy, and security. >> every weekend, experience american history on c-span3. 48 hours of people and events. hear accounts about people who have shaped history. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped america during the 150th anniversary of the american civil war. join collectors and historians behind scenes at museums.

american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. get our complete schedule online. >> you can access our programming with this c-span radio phone app. you can listen to our programs each week, available around the clock wherever you are. download it free from the app sotre. oke atn boehner sp the economic club of new york on monday. his remarks began after a short introduction. 40 minutes. >> please be seated.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good evening. the evening, everyone, and welcome to the meeting of the economic club of new york, in our 104th year. the economic club is the nation's leading non-partisan forum for economic policy. more than 1000 guest speakers have appeared over the last century and have established a strong to addition of excellence. tonight we continue that tradition. first i would like to recognize the 143 members of the centennial society. these members have made a personal contribution to assure the financial stability of the

club into its second century. their names are in your programs and on our website. i would like to welcome economic students from the city university of new york graduate center from fordham university and from manhattan college. they're here as our guests this evening. we're honored tonight to hear from the speaker of the united states house of representatives, john boehner. he was sworn in in january of 2011. he was the 61st speaker of the house. speaker boehner is in his 11th term as representative for the eighth congressional district from ohio. speaker boehner is the second of 12 children. at the age of 8, he was already sweeping floors in the family tavern. he went on to graduate with a degree in business from xavier university in cincinnati. before entering politics,, he ran a small business in the plastics and packaging industry.

he and his wife had been married for 30 years and have two daughters. the speaker was first elected to the ohio general assembly in 1985 and was subsequently elected to congress in 1990. in the 104 and 105th congress, his colleagues elected him to serve as the house gop conference chairman. in 2006, speaker boehner was elected to serve as the house majority leader. he has served on the house agricultural committee and is vice-chairman of the house administration committee and chairman of the house committee on education in the workforce. following his speech, we will have, members asked questions, and you can send your questions to our president by simply e- mail link them to questions@e conbluny.org.

please welcome the in welcome -- please join me in welcoming the speaker of the house, john boehner. [applause] and thank you for the chance to be here. i want to thank you and thank my colleague for being with us tonight. you come from many different backgrounds. but you're united by a common security of our nation. last night marked one week since the operation against osama bin laden, the man who orchestrated the horrific attack upon this city nearly 10 years ago.

bringing justice to bin laden was an important moment for america and all of the free world. but the challenges that lie ahead here at home remain formidable. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts tonight on how we need to address those challenges together, as ai came to be speaker of the house by way of small business. before i ran for congress, i was president of a small business in west chester, ohio -- nucite sales. we were manufacturers representatives in the packaging and plastics industry. but nucite wasn't my first life experience with small business. that came earlier, when my

brothers and i grew up mopping tavern outside of cincinnati established in the 1930s by my decades by my dad, earl. from around here. family of what you'd call kennedy democrats. i have 11 brothers and sisters. these experiences taught me a lot, long before i entered government service. they taught me our economy is a product of our people. our economy does best when government respects our people enough to give them the freedom to do what they do best. i believe our mission as legislators is to liberate our economy from the things that impede growth, to provide clear policies, so that innovators and entrepreneurs have the green light to move forward and create jobs, without having to worry about second-guessing from washington.

my message to you tonight is that we will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we commit ourselves to government policies that willterm growth. longconomy won't grow as as we continue to trip it up with short-term gimmicks from washington. many of our problems can be traced to a misguided belief by politicians that the american economy is something that can be controlled or micromanaged or influenced positively by government intervention and borrowing. all too often, rather than providing long-term policies that will help our economy expand, government offers

short-term fixes that do little right away, and end up making things worse over time. when things aren't going well in our economy, the impulse in washington is usually to respond with something big -- something "comprehensive." the assumption is that this will provide reassurance to job creators. but it usually has the opposite effect in practice. we saw this with dodd-frank. there was a financial meltdown in our country, and millions of americans were hit hard. all wrong. we got a banking system that is less competitive, pitting the small community banks like the ones in my district against giant banks that the federal government deems too big to fail. we got a consolidated banking system with a small number of

large firms operating as public utilities. we got a lot of new rules that make job creation and investment more difficult. and the government mortgage companies that triggered the whole meltdown went untouched. for job creators, the "promise" of a large new initiative coming out of washington is more like a threat. it freezes them. instead of investing in new employees or new equipment, they make the logical decision to stand pat. the american economy is the sum total of the hard work and ingenuity of our people. when the economy grows, it's not because of a new government program or spending initiative. it's because a lot of people in the private sector worked hard, and were successful in overcoming the obstacles thrown in their path.

the rash of "stimulus" legislation passed by congress in recent years has been one of those obstacles. the recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in america. the effect of adding nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt -- money borrowed mostly from foreign investors -- caused a further erosion of economic confidence in america, and increased uncertainty for millions of private-sector job creators. the massive borrowing and spending by the treasury department crowded out private businesses of all sizes. would create millions of newit didn't happen. job creators were looking for certainty.

you don't get long-term certainty from short-term government programs. the lesson of the stimulus era is that short-term government intervention is no substitute for long-term economic investment, private initiative, and freedom. i believe it's time to leave that era behind. we've also seen the arrogance of government recently in the skyrocketing gas prices our citizens and businesses are dealing with. there's a clear connection between high gas prices and the weak dollar that some in washington have quietly welcomed over the past couple of years. it's well known that when you print tons of money, the dollar sinks, and the price of food and energy rises -- significantly. yet the american people are told there is nothing that can be done about it. this is simply untrue. washington has also kept most

of our nation's vast energy resources under lock and key for decades, over the clear objections of the american people -- the people who own those resources. if we had listened to the people decades ago -- or even a few years ago -- many of these resources would be available to us right now to lower the price of energy. and we would probably have about a million private-sector jobs in america that we don't currently have. instead what washington has done is raise the specter of higher taxes, creating more uncertainty for those in america who create jobs. washington's arrogance has triggered a political rebellion in our country. toon't think "rebellion" is strong of a word. the revolt we have seen by ordinary citizens over the past few years is like nothing we've

seen in our lifetime. and it's happening in part because the arrogant habits of washington are having real economic consequences. the debt limit debate presents our nation's leaders with the opportunity to reverse these habits and prove that we're starting to get the message. coursechance to change and admit that reactionary, short-term washington solutions aren't always best. creating a sustainable fiscal structure for the federal government is essential for long-term economic growth. particularly when it comes to entitlements. we have a chance to provide certainty to job creators by signaling that our government is finally set to take a new approach when it comes to the spending and borrowing that has put us so deeply in debt.

as you know, the president has asked congress to increase the debt limit, and to do so without preconditions. there are those who insist we shouldn't play games with it. others have gone further. one prominent figure even went so far as to say "the people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al-qaeda terrorists." with all due respect, this is the arrogance of power -- and the american people won't stand for it. this is the time to end the spending binge and prioritize and modernize what we spend. limits a reason the debt can't be increased without a vote of congress. the debt limit is set in statute specifically so that the executive and legislative branches of our government have to deal with the difficult

fiscal choices we face. i know there are many in this room who are uneasy with this debate. i understand your concerns. it's true that allowing america to default would be irresponsible. but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process. to increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our debt -- in defiance of the will of our people -- would be monumentally arrogant and massively irresponsible. it would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that america still is not serious about dealing with our spending addiction. it would erode confidence in our economy and reduce certainty for small businesses.

american jobs. so let me be as clear as i can be. without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. and the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. we should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions. they should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.

and with the exception of tax hikes -- which will destroy jobs -- everything is on the table. that includes honest conversations about how best to preserve medicare, because we all know, with millions of baby boomers beginning to retire, the status quo is unsustainable. if we don't act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon. that's the warning we got from standard & poor's a few weeks ago. if we fail to use this as a moment to demonstrate that we're getting serious about fixing the debt, the result will be fewer jobs, less confidence, and more uncertainty. the debt limit debate is critical because it's forcing us to make a choice right now as a nation. the a choice between

policies of the past, and a new vision that acknowledges we can't tax, borrow and spend our way back to prosperity. current budget debate is the notion that in order to balance the budget, we have to raise taxes. the truth is we will never balance the budget and rid our children of debt unless we cut growth. and we will never have real economic growth if we raise taxes on those in america who create jobs. i ran for congress in 1990, the year our nation's leaders struck a so-called bargain that raised taxes as part of a bipartisan plan to balance the budget. the result of that so-called bargain was the recession of the early 1990s. economyt until the

picked back up toward the end of that decade that we achieved a balanced budget. today some seem intent on recycling the 1990 budget deal, only this time with much larger tax increases. that's not going to happen, and i've told that to the president. a tax hike would wreak havoc not only on our economy's ability to create private-sector jobs, but also on our ability to tackle the national debt. balancing the budget requires spending cuts and economic growth. we won't have economic growth if we raise taxes and fail to address the drivers of our debt. the mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators -- uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs. balancingerious about

the budget and getting our economy back to creating jobs, tax hikes should be off the table. i mentioned i was raised in a family of kennedy democrats. it was before this very club in 1962 that president john f. kennedy said the following -- "our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. it is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits." rather than increase government spending, president kennedy told the new york economic club, we should cut taxes significantly, and take steps to "increase incentives and the availability of investment

capital" for employers. i would note that my colleagues and i are not calling for tax cuts in our budget. rather, we're calling for an end to the threat of tax hikes -- and a fundamental reform of the tax code -- to provide certainty to those in our country who create jobs. we're calling for an end to the government spending binge that is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital needed for job creation. there's another myth i need to address, and that is the myth that addressing our debt challenges requires pain. addressing our debt requires action. pain comes only from inaction. suffering comes from standing pat and waiting for investors,

job creators, and capital markets to impose a solution before elected leaders cannot. root-canal economics has a name, and its name is doing nothing. the greatest threat to our economy and our future is doing nothing. we urgently need to enact reforms that will protect and preserve critical programs like medicare and medicaid. if we do nothing, as some propose, that guarantees benefit cuts for seniors. let me repeat that, because it's a crucial point that is too often overlooked. if we do nothing, seniors' benefits will be cut. and to those who contend that the economy is too weak to take on the challenge of entitlement reform -- i would simply say, you've got it backwards.

the truth is that making fundamental reforms to these programs would be good for the economy -- and good for the next generation. it's possible to make changes in a way that will ensure future beneficiaries will have access to the same kinds of options as members of congress currently have. the budget put forth by our budget committee chairman, paul ryan of wisconsin, accomplishes this. and instead of raising taxes, it calls for fundamental reform of the tax code -- a priority for us that will be led by dave camp of michigan, the chairman of the house committee on ways & means. there are also other steps that can be taken immediately to help free our economy and support private-sector job creation. many of them are outlined in the pledge to america, the governing agenda we put forth last year by listening to the people. we can stop the environmental

protection agency from proceeding with a backdoor energy tax that will further increase gas prices and destroy jobs. we can pass the reins act, authored by my colleague geoff davis of kentucky. it requires congressional approval of any new government rule with an estimated economic cost of $100 million or more. we can use trade agreements with panama, colombia, and south korea to create jobs and boost our economy by opening new markets to american exports. coupled with the fundamental spending reforms and tax reforms i've described, these policies will clear a path for long-term, sustained economic growth. with such policies in place, the federal budget can be balanced. in closing, let me say i'm humbled by the opportunity to serve our country.

we owe it to the people of our country to ensure that the opportunities our generation had are there for current and future generations. we owe them a humbler government that lives within its means and values the entrepreneurial drive of our people, with policies that unleash the awesome potential of our economy. for those of us in washington, this has to be our focus. until our economy is back on track and the american dream has been restored, there can be no rest. it starts with freedom. in america, it always has. this is the moment. this is the opportunity to deal with our long term fiscal challenges spreads and we cannot let this moment pass.

with you tonight. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. a founder of the peterson foundation. j hartley, a trustee of the economic club of new york and ceo of the observatory group. in addition, our president will read any questions that have been received. jane, i will let you have the first shot. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for being with us tonight. especially because i know how hectic your schedule is. we are really thrilled to have you with us. i personally want to thank you for your many years of public service.

are you concerned a similar scenario could occur? if that scenario appears to be developing, would you be willing to consider a temporary increase in the debt ceiling while negotiations on a longer-term budget package continue? >> not increasing the debt ceiling would be responsible. having said that, i do not want to allow this moment that we have in our history to pass without real action to solve our long-term economic problems. while there was a hard date on the fiscal 2011 budget, as you all know, at there really is no hard date when it comes to increase in the debt limit.

i would soon cut the deal tomorrow if i could get leaders to sit down and recognize the fact that this really is the moment and we should not lead -- miss this opportunity. >> mr. speaker, thank you. some on the left believe that we can close the budget gap largely through tax increases. by relying solely on tax hikes would require raising taxes by roughly 60%. at the same time, many on the right say that we should close the gap through spending cuts alone. based on congressional office numbers, at that would require cutting spending by 38% across the board. if we take social security and defense off the table, we would have to reduce all other

spending by 66%. mr. speaker, all these numbers seem draconian and politically impossible to me. how can we possibly solve this long-term debt crisis if one sized says categorically no tax increase and the other side says categorically no significant spending cuts. >> i have made it pretty clear that raising taxes is not the table. raising taxes on the very people we expect to invest in our economy and create jobs will have a devastating impact on our ability to bed -- balance the budget. to balance the budget, we need to do three things. we do control the discretionary pot, which is about one-third of the budget. this year, we will spend $79 billion left brigid less than what the president want to spend. $38.5 billion less than what we spent last year. that is one step, one leg of the

stool. secondly, we need to address a mandatory spending. it would include the major entitlement programs. these programs are not sustainable in the current form. let's not forget that there are 10,000 baby boomers who are retiring every day. 10,000 people every day on social security, medicare, people living longer and accessing medicaid. these programs will not exist if we did not address the problem. the third point is that we have to have real economic growth. we cannot tax our way to prosperity. we cannot cut our way to balancing the budget. we need real economic growth if we're serious about solving america's problems. but, he pointed out, you are right, there are draconian. we have to have controls on

spending. spat employs more americans were taken care of themselves and their families and contributing their share to the revenues for the federal government, we can solve this problem. but we need to put ourselves on a path for we can balance the budget and pay off our debts so that we can preserve a future for our kids and grandkids. >> speaker, you mentioned fundamental tax reform, which everyone in this room would be quite supportive of. what are the prospects for the house considering a corporate tax reform package in the next two years? should a corporate tax reform package plan be considered separate from legislation to revamp the tax cut for individuals? does the corporate tax reform package may to be revenue neutral? i know there are some members of the business community that have suggested that revenue neutrality should be a lesser priority in the effort.

>> i do think that in the next few years, you'll see the house and the congress do corporate tax reform. we will not use it as a way of increasing taxes on the american people or american enterprises. we have the second largest corporate tax rate in the world and our country it is less competitive as a result and we need to do this. there was a third point your question? consideredhave to be with individual tax reform? >> i do not think it has to be considered with it, but we're talking about the corporate tax code, you also have to look at the pass through entities, whether they are llc's. it is business and come, i did not think it can be treated separately. it will push us to do the

personal side of fundamental tax reform, it will be closely associated with it. >> mr. speaker, as you know, america's health care costs are racing toward 20% of the gdp. twice that of other developed nations. in my view, these costs seriously threaten what you were talking about, competitiveness and jobs growth. however, america's health-care cost problem is not systematic problem. the private sector, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of all medical spending, has also seen explosive in health care costs. chairman ryan has proposed the medicare reform plan, but would limit the federal government's

cost, but potentially shift the burden to seniors. in fact, the congressional budget office projects that seniors could see their out of pocket cost more than double under this plan. until now, the market has not been affected at containing health-care costs. how can we assume the market will bring down the private sector cost in the future? >> the idea that the government is going to drive innovation is an oxymoron. the fact is, the private sector can bring real change to our health care system in a way that pretax the best health care delivery system in the world. i have to tell you, i love you to death, but i do not think the taxpayers should be paying more medicare premium. plan, let's allow the american people to decide

which health-care plan fits their needs. if you are middle income, lower income, we are going to pay, just like we did today, for the cost of those premiums. but for people of means, that there is no reason why we should subsidize peterson's premium. i am sorry. i know that this is oh, my goodness, we cannot do this. we had to treat all americans alike. let me tell you, we're broke. for those who have substantial means, you can pay your own premium. [laughter] you wanted english, you will get a list. >> i am beginning to take this personally. [laughter]

>> we better go to the next question. >> are there any plans for the house to consider this year legislation that would provide a tax holiday to encourage companies to repatriate profits held overseas, similar to the proposal that was approved by congress and to delta for. >> there is been some discussion about it. outlook, i fundamental reform of the corporate tax cut, i believe this is an appropriate opportunity to help american businesses and bring that money home where it can be invested here as opposed to elsewhere. what we're doing it, we ought to be looking seriously at a territorial tax code that would prevent this problem from occurring in the future. >> why are taxes off the table? >> because i believe that raising taxes will hurt our

economy, hurt our ability to have real economic growth, and hurt employment in our country. we do not have the revenue problem, we have a spending problem. let's address the spending problem. >> mr. speaker, all joking aside, i minnesota enthusiastic supporter -- i am an enthusiastic supporter -- get those of us who are well-off can not participate significantly of sharing the burden, who then will? the whole concept of reducing across the entitlement board is essential element of reform. i have a final question on defense. which we have not discussed. we said everything is on the table. we must said whatever is a

necessary to keep our country safe, but the u.s. spends more on national defense in the next 17 highest spending countries combined. the chairman of the joint chiefs have said recently the single biggest threats to our national security is our debts. he also said the budget has basically doubled in the last decade and in dublin, we lost our ability to prioritize. it seems to me that it is not enough to say, no defense cuts anymore than it is ok to slash defense spending would little account of arent national security means. isn't it time for a fundamental review of defense spending and priorities?

>> the number one obligations of our government is to provide the safety and security of the american people. when i said everything is on the table, i meant everything is on the table except for raising taxes. the department of defense does not spend their 600 plus billion dollars every year as efficiently as you would spend your money or i wouldn't mind. there needs to be a fundamental review of what our defense posture is and how much we spend on it. it has to be an important part of this debate and i guarantee you that will be. what is a gentleman, thank you very much. -- ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. [no audi[applause]

>> thank you very much. thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to talk to with us today. we wish you great success. we wish us all great success, and enjoy your dinner. [applause] >> in a few moments, tea party activist criticized house republicans and speaker john boehner. jill biden and secretary of state hillary clinton expressed concerns about human rights in china while talking about u.s.- china relations. after that, the pakistan prime

minister denies claims that he knew of osama bin laden's whereabouts before he was killed. on "washington journal tomorrow morning, we will look at the debate over federal spending and the debt limit. a member of the energy and commerce committee. we will preview the president's speech by immigration tomorrow with the head of the national hispanic leadership agenda. we'll be joined by karen with the army corps of engineers. to deter questions about the near-record flood levels on the mississippi river. "washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00. >> experience american history on c-span3. it is 48 hours of people and events telling the american

story. here first-person accounts. travel to import into battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped an era. every weekend, a visit claque -- college classrooms across the nation. join curators, collectors, and historians behind the scenes at museum exhibits. the presidency, focusing on the american president legacies as told through the star of speeches and personal insights. american history tv on c-span3 -- all weekend, every weekend. >> now available, c-span is congressional directory, a complete guide to the congress. new and returning house and senate members was contact

information, including twitter addresses. information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online c-span.org. >> a group of tea party activists held a press conference this morning. they say not enough is being done to reduce federal spending or repealing the new health care law. from the national press club, this is a little more than an hour. asked i am a supporter of the tea party freedom jamboree coming up october 1 and second in kansas city. we are excited to gather here today. i will take the opportunity to introduce to you each speaker that will be coming up.

they will remind you of for they are when they step to the podium. after that, i will read a statement from michele bachmann and we will get going with the other speakers. our first speaker will be william temple, who is the chair of the tea party founding fathers. he is chairman of the freedom in danbury -- freedom jamboree. it will be held in kansas city in october. he was time magazine's face of the tea party. he is a veteran of the secret service, the pentagon, and a vietnam combat veteran with the u.s. army. second speaker will be a dose of dara, the editor and founder and chief executive officer of wnd

.com/ he is a syndicated columnist and author of the tea party manifesto. our third speaker will be brought in westbury -- brian westbury. he is the chief economist for first trust in visors. he is the former chief economist for a joint economic committee of the u.s. congress and he is a member of the academic advisory council of the federal reserve bank of chicago. our fourth speaker is dr. daniel mitchell, a senior fellow and a former economist for the u.s. senate finance committee. fifth we have the reverend c. l. bryant, the director of the tea party founding fathers. he is a member of the red river tea party and tea party patriots. a fellow at freedom works and a

former president of the naacp in texas. he is a documentary producer and to confine doubt about that at his website. he is a baptist minister and founder of one nation back to guide -- onenationbacktogod.com. he was the tea parties 2010 candidate for governor in the state of iowa. bob is a ceo and president of and i web based organization called the family leader. before i turn it over to william temple, i want to read a statement that we ever given by michele bachmann in lieu of her absence. >> the tea party is every day americans and every day americans want congress to stop offering around the edges of our government spending crisis.

they do not want the debt ceiling raised and they are demanding that washington live within its means. i'm not able to be with you today, but if i were, i would tell you that i hear you and i agree. it is time to reject the debt ceiling scare tactics and address the truly frightening reality that our debt is at $14 trillion and growing. the debt ceiling boats will offer an opportunity that was squandered during the vote for the 2011 continuing resolution. even as you gather in washington today, bureaucrats are spending tax dollars to plant the roots of obama care and make it nearly impossible to stop this massive job destroying, budget busting entitlement. any vote on the debt ceiling must include a vote to fully defined obama care. to do less is to ensure that the next debt ceiling vote will not be the last and that is unacceptable.

thank you to the tea party for not giving up the fight. your stubborn determination to return to our country to its founding principals gives me great hope. that was michele bachmann from minnesota 6 the district. i will now turned over to william temple. >> good morning. brian william temple and i play the parts -- i am william temple. first one on the left and the first one the british would appalling and we do this colonial alpha to remind the current government of the first revolution. we are in a revolution right now, the american people. when the tea party movement started in early 2009, i'd joined hundreds of thousands of others who've gone before us

have taken up the fight for freedom over and over again. from my role as a founder of our local tea party group in the golden isles of georgia, i eventually had the honor of literally it leading the team does a 9 a march on washington. 1.9 million as my fellow citizens as we marched in washington against obama care and big government tyranny, which obama care represents. the first act of terror in the sense the british were kicked out of this country. on march 1, 2010. last december, i was elected by my fellow tea party leaders to charity party national convention. in that capacity, i am in touch with virtually every one of the thousands of two-party leaders across the country.

i know how they think and feel since they are the real grass- roots folks that ride the buses 10 hours appear to d.c. and but their last pay check to do it. right now, we are very upset about those that we sent here in 2010 to serve us in the u.s. house. during the fall of 2010, the house republican minority promised us $100 billion in cuts for the 2011 budget. most of the house gop freshman class, while they were candid, also promises they would not raise the national debt ceiling. based on these promises, the tea parties 2010 efforts but house republicans into power and everyone knows it. john boehner entered the

speaker's chair. yet we never been this bad -- deeply disappointed. instead of a fighter for u.s. taxpayers, he has been a surrender rest who waved the white flag before the first shots are fired. before the battle is even joined. instead of delivering that wander billion dollars in promised cuts, he opened his bidding at $35 billion. yet actually obtained just $20 billion. a spit in the ocean, folks. worth about five days worth of u.s. barley. why? it's seems the house speaker and this fellow republicans like to spend other people's money just as much as the democrats. last year, the house republican minority joined with the tea party to fight against obama care. but once in power, this year, the house republican majority,

after a hollow purely symbolic repeal vote, had adamantly refused to use their genuine power to fix obama-care, medicare, medicaid, or any of the other at of control entitlements. washington is borrowing 40 cents per dollar of federal spending, $4 -- $4 billion per day. to bury our children beneath the smothering national debt, yet these when the house rhino's refused to hide president obama as mastercard. paul ryan, a so-called courageous budget, add nine trillion to the u.s. debts and does that get balanced until 26 to 3. i am old enough already.

house republicans hold in their hands a weapon of mass discipline. if they would use it. all they need to do is lock arms and say, mr. president, we are not going to call a vote on raising the debt ceiling. we will not even think about on hiding your credit card until you have joined us in enacting bipartisan entitlement reform in fixing the obama care mess. that is what they should do. to wield this awesome weapon of mass discipline, house republicans did not need to pass anything. they do not need the cooperation of harry reid, the senate democrats, or the president's grade all they need to do is nothing. but not be lovely, to have congress do nothing? to sit on their hands and refuse any vote to allow more borrowing beyond the current debt limit. the departing plans to scored

just one vote in the u.s. house for purposes of candidate ratings this year. if you vote to raise the debt ceiling, you did a zero for the year from the tea party. if you did not vote to raise the debt ceiling, you score 100 and you are a hero. everything else, it is just smoke and mirrors. this is your town. we will be judging the house republicans and democrats colleagues on one issue only. did you vote for more debt? that is its. red ink requires pink slips. federal layoffs and downsizing for d.c.'s ruling class just like for all the rest of us out there. yet john boehner aims to maintain a full federal employment while the private

sector bears the brunt. i wish our house speaker would just show some compassion for american taxpayers and their children. it is a cowardly act of treason against coming generations and we may be able to give john boehner something really to cry out in 2012. today, rhino hunting season opens. we were not the ones who did 7 million damage in wisconsin, by the way. to a multi-party and voters, we say, stock them with phone calls, picketing and other district offices. they will vote for more debts without even demanding obama care is repealed. obama-care must go. that is why the house is filled with republicans now.

but please, not a pretty flowers in the barrel of my musket. we're calling our kansas event the tea party woodstock festival. we're urging nothing but peaceful pursuit of all house republicans who've gone a wobbly. we oppose more debts. because i know our people very well, i've marked with them, i rounded with them, i think it is safe to say it of the tea party movement as a whole might possibly for give john boehner and the house republicans a small bump in the debt ceiling. we might even forget to give our

legislative score cards printed. how did that happen? it is obama-care is repealed before hand, we might make a deal. five top market oriented think tanks agreed upon at the top 10 things the house gop needs to fix. obama-care. we might be in a forgiving mood it the other health care entitlements of medicare, medicaid, and the u.s. tax code gets fixed beforehand. everyone agrees with the president and his deficit commission. what does paul ryan's budget

delayed these fixes for a decade? in another effort -- if the only thing offered on the table is a dead hike of $100 billion, what's -- what a response to get that this year? $100 billion, not a busy but -- not a penny more. but the president does not like it, let him figure out what to prioritize and there is a lot that he can prioritize and what to cut when the cash starts running out. that figure also approaches the ballpark of a months worth of u.s. borrowing. just a month work -- work. it easily said that another debt ceiling. after we allow $100 billion, we will speak with them again. we'll talk about the next 100 billion great if half of discretionary spending that is cut, most of it is either

unconstitutional, unsustainable, silly, or evil. how could we tell future generations that we saddled them with trillions in debt for fannie mae and freddie mac, planned parenthood, and the art -- npr, tobacco subsidies that cause cancer, co2 regulation of him and xto. we will tell our grandchildren. how can we tell our children that we dug their debt grade in order to hold washington harmless from the kind of layoffs at the private sector have experience. in a recession caused by congress banking on housing policy. the edge are going home. after we tell them that we kept on borrowing $4 billion per day

in order to buy a third of the u.s. corn crop for ethanol subsidies that spite food prices for the world's ports. -- poor. it is a lie, folks. when he tells and the house of action on the debt ceiling = default. it is a lie. because there is plenty of tax revenue. tim geithner is in charge of paying that interest. what he really means when he says that we will default on federal obligations is simply, no more borrowed cash will be available for every kind of spending authorized by it

republicrat polls that cannot say no. in social security is unfunded liabilities and those of the entitlement programs, including anti marriage subsidies and u.s. will for policy, social pathologies that addressed in events. if the house armed services committee and the pentagon slowdown on injecting open homosexuality and females in the fourth combat roles. is that necessary? when the pentagon's own study shows that the military -- and may have an extremely costly impact.

why would john boehner your house republicans be caving to political correctness? why what house republicans who know better by fostering inappropriate attractions and the input -- inappropriate attractions when we're fighting wars? as they conduct a veteran, i know that we do not have time to worry about the guy behind us. if a balanced budget amendment requiring a supermajority and tax increases out -- passes the house and senate and we will not hold our breath on that one, but we would like to see it. finally, if rhino house leadership starts following the examples of other held voices like michele bachmann, jim

jordan, or marco rubio, new been talking tough and planning to filibuster against raising the debt limit. the tea party will not be in a forgiving mood this fall at the national convention in kansas city parade as the gop primary season opens, it house freshmen and other selected by the tea party cave to obama, we will find replacements for them this fall. thank you. >> thank you, william. i read a very brief statement. when the republicans took over the house of representatives, i

immediately began thinking, what the new gop majority could accomplish with control of only half of the congress. obviously, passing any meaningful legislation objectionable to the venice station or senate democrats was out of the question. house republicans could propose cutting the budget, but could never hope to persuade their counterparts in a democrat, controlled senate. love alone of the man in the white house. they could ringbolt with democrats and take a symbolic action to demonstrate to the public there were real differences between the two parties. at the end of the day, i could be built only to actions house republicans could take that would allow them to assert themselves and impose their governing philosophy on the senate and the white house.

those two actions are saying no to any proposed tax increase because without their assent, there is no chance for democrats to raise taxes. at least until 2013. the second to was saying no to a hike in the debt limit. in this case, without their ascent there is no chance for democrats to continue business as usual or even employment programs such as obama-care. it would require something republicans have been calling for for decades. dramatic cuts in the budget that would actually require washington to return to something resembling a limited constitutional government. by january, only days after the republican majority took over the house, leadership began issuing statements indicating the second of those two actions was off the table.

john boehner stated time and again that the debt limit has to be raised. having spent a significant amount of time looking at the options of the house republicans, apo i was initially mystified by john boehner's position. i was sure that he just had not thought this through properly. didn't understand the power that he had in his hands. i organized and innovative a grass-roots directed exclusively to house republicans to persuade them to vote no. that is the no more red ink

campaign, no more red ink. it has delivered about 1 million hard copy letter to 241 house republicans who have all the power they need to say no to more borrowing and spending. i know this campaign has galvanized a lot of support among house republicans because we have been doing head counts for several months to see the changing boats -- changing of votes. we started the campaign in february, i could only count half a dozen house republicans fully supportive of a no vote on increasing the debt limit beyond $14.30 trillion. today, the vast majority of those house republicans do and we are approaching the necessary 218 votes to stop it

cold. that is why i'm here today with mighty party friends to remind republicans of why they were sent to washington last november and to warn them of the consequences of betraying their promises and their rhetoric to change the direction of washington governments. if republicans provide the votes necessary to continue the borrowing and spending madness, they will be telling americans effectively there is no alternative to the democratic party irresponsibility. they will be telling americans that representative government is dead. they will be telling americans republicans are all talk and no action. they'll be telling americans that there is virtually no difference between the two parties. and they will be stealing their own fate in the 2012 elections. " -- thank you very much.

>> my name is brian westbury, chief and got -- chief economist at first trust advisers. we're a money management firm at of illinois. in a way, my day job is to think about how to protect people's assets and grow them overtime. as a result, i did very worried about the size of government, the growth trajectory of government, tax rates, and the intersection of policy and public policy with the economy. also, back in 1995 and 1996, i was the chief economist for the joint economic committee, so i was here when the government shut down in 1995 and 1996. part of that was over a debt limit vote. i want to remind you that back then, at the deficit was about 4% of gdp. we used the phrase $200 billion

deficits as far as the eye can see. today, we're talking about a trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see. 11% of gdp versus three your 4% of gdp. when i compare this back in 1996, i did this for reason. the government was sent down, it was a major political brouhaha we can decide to one and two loss, but at the end, by the late 1990's, we had a surplus in the federal budget. it was just 10 years ago when the federal budget was in surplus. i remember alan greenspan saying that he was worried about the surplus because it was calling to get rid of all of the government bonds in existence and he could not run monetary policy.

that was just 10 years ago. we now have huge deficits and that is why i'm here. i support the use of the debt limit as a tool to get spending down and the budget under control. not allowing big debts limits to increase if we were to hold it steady is not a default on u.s. government debt. there never once in the vast 65 years on a monthly basis have revenues them less than the interest owed on the debt. in other words, as long as we decide to pay the interest, we can pay eight every single month

from now until and tennessee, without a tax hike, without changing anything of the budget today. in the principle that becomes due, we can roll it over. we'll this issue more debt, it does not increase the debt cap. will not default on our debt to foreigners, ruining the yen's its credit rating if we do not raise the debt limit. number 2, reduce the outlook for the american bond market to a negative outlook. this was reported by some to be because people are worried about the debt limit and that it would not increase. anyone who does not believe that, they have to go read the statement. it was very clear. it said, the obama administration has proposed

representative ryan has done the same thing. if it were to get together and to move in something like this direction, cutting trillions, before the election of 2012, we would not put the country on a negative outlook. however, we judge that these two sides are so far apart, and they will be able -- they will be unable to come together before 2014. in our opinion, that means that the budget is at risk and they were putting us on negative outlook because of the political environment, not on reaching consensus about cutting spending, not because someone like a tea party is talking about not raising the debt ceiling.

i was looking at the bible last night and i read about solomon trade sullivan was considered wise, he had wisdom from god. he was presented with a dilemma. twoby a he said, cut in half. and this smoked out the real mother because she was willing to give up the baby, not have the cut in half. i looked at the debt ceiling debate and that kind of story. we have to be seriously enough about cutting spending and using the dead sibling as that tool is perfectly -- the debt ceiling as that tool. global financial markets, they are smart enough to figure this out. they're smart enough to understand the nuances of the political debate. if the debt ceiling is used as a tool, a weapon of mass

discipline, i believe that the financial markets will move through its ads if it works, and spending is cut, we will leave the other side of this debate in very great shape. the jobless90's was recovery, the late 1990's as one of the greatest booms in history. part of that boom was because spending was reduced at the federal government level. the government fell as a share of gdp and the private sector exploded upward. this is a very important battle. the financial markets can handle just fine. what they're asking for is spending reduction. if the tool the debt ceiling is used, they will be a-ok with that. thank you. >> my name is dan mitchell.

i wanted a couple points. echoing something bryans said, the federal government is expected to collect more than $2.20 trillion. the interest on the debt this year is supposed to be about $207 billion. even if we assumed that the government forecast are a bit off, there is more than enough money to pay every single penny of interest on the debts. this is not an issue about default. the treasury secretary is being deceitful. the fed chairman is being misleading as well. the issue is whether or not you get government spending under control. the deficit and the dead are the symptoms. the underlying problem is a government that is to bake. it is a bipartisan problem. obama promised change and the rest in the same direction and with a fake stimulus.

that is why we are in a fiscal ditch because government under republicans and democrats -- government spending has exploded. how do we get out of the mass? according to the congressional budget office, revenues will increase by an average of 7% of the next 10 years. that is assuming a tax cuts are permanent. it does not take a math genius to realize that you produce red ink it spending grows by less than 7% each year. if we froze spending at the current level, if we did with the canadians did come up with good balance the budget by 2017. even if you let government spending grow by 2% a year, you balance the budget by 2020 line. what are our options for achieving that? i wish would cut spending, all

we have to do is limit the growth. unfortunately, it there is very few leverage point that the debt limit is set -- the debt limit is one of them. at the debt limit goes through, we will have done a great disservice to our children and grandchildren. thank you. >> good morning. i have been with the tea party movement since 2009, where i joined william temple in washington, d.c. i was proud to be a tea party your event and i am proud to be one in now. the truth was true then and the

truth about what we are talking about and have been talking about for these two years is true now. we do not want a fundamental change in the health of this country. the reason we stand together is to make a certain that the core values of this country remain intact. we see that there is eighth quarter ended efforts -- we see that there is a coordinated effort to fundamentally destroy the the core values of this country on which its financial help has rested. and has prospered. we send this message to john boehner and every rhino on capitol hill. we did not give you the gavel of the house of representatives to play nice with the liberal

democrats. we did not give you that the gavel and the big stick that you have, so that he would not use it. what is the point? to protect the interest of the air in people. also, please send this message. to those who have spoken, but about changing the very nature and the very reason our army protect this country, and the principles that have guided its, the pentagon has spoken and it is told that this particular administration that it is not prudent to do the things that they're doing as far as don't ask, don't tell. as a pastor, as a minister, i

speak to other pastors across this country. it is time for you to stand up and be bold and not to speak to the issue said affect the people sitting in your congregations. it is then there will be affected by the policies of this administration. but we're reminded that it was the pastors, the preachers, when this country was founded. there were held to the most by the british. there were able to inspire passion and the people of this country. america is the greatest success story that the world's ever known. i stand here as the great- grandson of former slaves, and yet today, a free man.

i say to each and every one of you americans out there, stand up for america. stand up for god and country. god bless the republic. [applause] >> thank you. i am the president of the family leader of iowa. in front of you, you have quite a collective group of people. from a pastor to economist to tea party to a well-known author, and a family leader. you might wonder why would i associate myself or why would all this come together? we are looking for exceptional leadership. from my point of view, there is a serious threat to the family if we do not have some real leadership. exceptional leadership is a lot

like a beauty, they are both difficult to describe, but you know what when you see it. i will plays an important role in launching the presidential campaign process. we take this role very serious. prickly, i am asked what i am looking for any presidential candidate. lookingnasrallah i'm for in a presidential candidate. i am looking for exceptional leadership. there america will be better off than the america of their parents. many of the next generation are starting to question that. these challenges demand exceptional leadership. in 2006, senator obama said, raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. at that time, he was against

raising our debt limit to $8.90 trillion. but now when 2011, president obama is demanding an increase to the $14.30 trillion debt limit to feed their out-of- control spending frenzy. given his own words, his demand for increased debt today is a sign of leadership failure. the old leadership demand exceptional leadership from others. this is why i joined with the tea party founding fathers and support their freedom jamboree coming up into kansas city. promoting our country's return to our constitutional rights. this is why we're calling on john boehner to step ought and provide exceptional leadership. this debt limit to reality

provides the perfect opportunity to substantially reduce the size and scope of the federal government. to absolutely refuse to increase the nation's credit card limits and began the long overdue process of the entitlement reform. frankly, this is our only hope for a sustainable future for the family. it is not only important that we have exceptional leadership in congress, but we elect a president -- collect a replacement for president obama. as a family leader, the organization, we are ratcheting up are venting of the 2012 presidential candidate. when i get a chance to me with them, i tell them the efforts and initiatives point toward strengthening the family. that has to do with life, marriage, the constitution. but it has to do with this fiscal issue as well. this includes advocating for fiscal policy that gives families the best opportunities

to thrive financially. along those lines, i am telling those across the country that america needs a president that will be on tax reform. on reforming medicare, medicaid, social security, and on drastically cutting discretionary spending. we need a president that opposes raising our debt ceiling, but opposes deficit spending that leads to death and the first place. a president who will settle for nothing left predict to dent in the first place. at the foundation of this madness, we are talking about constitutional parameters. regarding the size and scope of government. we need a president babel holds the founders' intent. this is a freedom issue.

the earlier to do these things is a direct assault on hard- working families across america and a tremendous setback for future generations. we need a president was more concerned about the next generation than the next election. we need a president who cares more about we the people of the enemy the politician. in an iowa, where leading the charge to discover and to launch that leaders peter -- that leader. our standards are high because they need to be. i invite all presidential candidate to journey to iowa, up to share their constitutional, they're conservative, and their positive vision for america. it must benefit families for generations to come. make no mistake, regardless of what the president may say, america it is an exceptional

country. it demand exceptional leadership. we the people will demand nothing less. with that, i thank all my peers up here and their presentations today. i will open it up for any questions from the press. >> [inaudible] mr. temple seem to equate don't ask don't tell to the debt ceiling. do you agree with that? is that a similar fight? >> it is a ripple effect. when you start going away from a core value issues, the ripple effect leads right to economic issues as well. ron paul was with us not too long ago and some potential

candidates in iowa and some other comments were, if you tell me where you are at on some court value issues, i will tell you where you are act on economic policy. when we leave the fundamental values, it will translate into port economic policy. >> [inaudible] what about the gay service members who are risking their lives in afghanistan? i was in combat in vietnam. but the sexual orientation of many of my fellow soldiers worked very well. do not ask, don't tell works. you did not ask me when you ask the question, the mice -- what my sexual orientation is. but i will tell you right now,

don't ask, don't tell and we will all get along just fine. >> what if somebody asks? >> some of the tea party agree with you that john maynard is insufficiently leading, but some of the tea party opponents say that he should be challenged in the primaries. are you going that far? >> we're trying to encourage the speaker to demonstrate leadership as well as the other appears that were elected on november 2010. we are hoping that they step up and provide that leadership. not increase the debt ceiling, repeal obama-care. that is why we sent them there in the first place.

/discretionary -- splat -- a/discretionary spending. that jury is still out. >> will you be keeping score? you say that you'll be watching. is that putting pressure on the speaker? >> there is no doubt that it is putting pressure on speaker john boehner as well as other members of congress. we're watching your actions because quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. >> is that the message that is being delivered here today? maybe if you could repeat a little bit. >> a rhino is a republican in

name only. we were highly responsible for john boehner and the house t party caucus. to get elected. we expect that definition, we're defining them as republicans in name only on one issue. if they will hold the ceiling on the national debt, they are not. if they raise its combat they will be advertised everywhere and we will run a candidate against them in their own districts if they raise it on that one issue only. >> [inaudible] >> they have time to change. they moved the date to august now. we will pressure them. >> what i have noticed, looking at the revenue stream compared

to the gdp, we increase our spending by $800 billion. we had a drop-off of revenue ever sense. should we demand as an obvious mathematical issue that they cut $800 billion that they incurred and trim down to 14 or 13% to the week and pay off some of this dead? this seems that -- pay off his debts? >> that sounds wonderful. we have some economists here that can address your question better than i can. >> federal government spending when bill clinton left office was 18.2% of gdp. that is the reason why we are in ess.scal mass parade -- a mas

they will climb back above the historical average of 80% of gdp by the time we get to 2020. the balance in the budget is a simple matter of bringing the spending back down to where it was when bill clinton left office. >> the problem here is that they never got to 26. they got to 20% prior to 9/11. ever since they dropped revenue, you need sincere cuts below the bass line in order to stimulate. we need to reestablish his market to get off the machine. but the percentage of gdp data on spending and revenue, the inflation and washes out on both sides of the ledger. it is separate from the issue of the burden of government spending.

>> i will agree with everything that dan just said. one of the reasons we are having a slow recovery right now, one of the reasons that the unemployment rate is still eight. -- 9% is because the government is so big. the formula is very simple. a larger the government is, the more share of gdp we spend, the smaller the private sector is. it is straight out math. i've borrow and tax to fund the government, that money can no longer be used in the private sector. cutting spending is a good for the economy. your question about coming in

at 10:00 and missing some things, a lot of this today is about the debt ceiling and the debt limit and using the debt limit to is a good tool from an economist point of view to get spending down. it will benefit the economy. the whole point is, cut spending. if you have to use the debt limit to do that, i think it is well worth the effort. the economy will benefit on the other side. >> just one more thing. on the whole issue of big government, energy, interior, commerce, and none of them are found in the constitution as a federal responsibility. we allow that to be developed over the 80 years.

we have george washington and i want you to understand that? it's a moral issue. i've asked him to say a few words. >> thank you. we are here on monday, after mother's day, and i said, and my mother was the most beautiful woman i ever saw. all i am, i wrote to my mother. every man and every woman posed a dent to their mother and father. that is a debt of gratitude, that is not a doubt that we owe because our servants have been spent reps. it might farewell address on the 17th of september, 1796, i said a very important source of strength and security is to cherished public credits. one method of preserving it is to use its as sparingly as

possible. avoiding the accumulation of debt. not only by shouting -- by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge that debt which may event occasioned by ambac the necessity -- by the necessity of borrowing upon us wars. price upon posterity, our debts, is a burden that they ought not to bear. aid debts is a tax upon the future of america. there is no brock is more dangerous than that of borrowing money. for money went -- when it can be had in this money, repayment is seldom thought of in time, the interest becomes a lost

exertions to raise its ad din position on our industry. it comes easy and spent freely. many things indulged them which would not have been obtained if it were not purchased by the sweat of one's brow. in a letter that i wrote to james welch on the seventh of april, 1799, after i left the presidency, i said, to contract new debts is not the way to pay old ones. thank you. >> [inaudible] mr. temple brought up the issue of [inaudible]

holiday you -- how did you justify that continued policy? >> i think -- i do not want to speak on behalf of the entire group. we are up here individually as citizens who are addressing the need for leadership and reform in this country. in regards to energy, i am and all the above guy. we need to be drilling here, we need to tap into the energy base that we have here in this country, i think we need to look at alternative and renewable fuels. ethanol is a piece of that. i think we have taken a look -- there been a lot of things that have been subsidized and we are saying, everything needs to be on the table. this debt ceiling is a huge issue. to pass on this type of debts to the next-generation, it might be one of the one of the most immoral things that we can do.

did not increase the debt ceiling, but let's put everything on the table. let's opiate -- like the pill obama-care. let's go after discretionary spending. all that needs to be on the table. >> could you give us the short summation? john boehner is supposed to speak in new york tonight in new york. what would you tell if you had the chance? >> we are telling john boehner and tell the house republicans they came into office with tea party help. we now expect them to hold to their promises and hold the ceiling on the national debt. they can sit on their hands and do nothing, which might be easy for them comment and did they do nothing, we will not add to our national debt. we are saying, stop raising the

national debt and this excessive government spending which is bankrupting our nation and endangering the lives of our children and grandchildren. >> if i could add one thing, one of the points that we made is not raising the national debt does not mean default. we have an estimated $2.50 trillion coming into the federal government this year. one other thing that you prefer many speakers is that if something is meaningful is achieved, whether it be spending, a pillar of obama- care, or some other form of a fiscal discipline, that might be worthwhile trade, based on what happened with the continuing resolution fight, there is not a lot of confidence that republicans will actually negotiate with document. -- acumen.

>> a dead is an immoral -- a debt of the nonmoral tax to america. in this constitution, for ourselves and for our posterity, that means the future. we must not place a tax on our children. >> what kind of spending cuts might be a trade-off? >> senator corker high as a cat attacked the that is an updated version. you have repeal of obama-care. you have generic spending caps on discretionary spending. there are lots of different ideas out there. my job is not to say which one is best. it is simply to say, during the resolution, they did not get much in terms of negotiation

that does not bode well for what will happen with the debt limit. >> from my perspective, the markets want to see some meaningful lasting and significant -- durable medium and long-term correction to the course that we're on. right now, we are looking at trillion dollar deficit plus as far as the eye can see. let me add a couple of comments. i am in the private sector. lehman brothers, wamu, the world's is taken out by the government with accusatory language with reckless behavior

and speculation. if the u.s. government was a bank, the fdic would close them down this friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful matter. what is interesting about this is that when i have discussions with politicians, they're basically saying, we needed glidepath, it 10 array 15 or 20 or 25-year to fix this because we cannot cut it this fast. the private sector does that get that luxury. no family gets that luxury. you either cut spending now, laypeople off, or go bankrupt. what is fascinating to me as a private-sector economists is that they turn around and say, i am being extreme.

i am the one he was extreme. because i am saying that you're out of control. it is fascinating to me. we need 15 years to fix things. but you do not get that luxury in the private sector. this is a bipartisan problem. this was created in a bipartisan manner. paul ryan, live known for a very long time, i met him when he was 19 years old, he was an intern to jack kemp. i love the guy. for the most part, he is an incredibly smart and free markets and cabalistic person. however, he voted for tarp, the bush stimulus bill, medicare part a d, no child left behind, and the list and go on. my question to them is, what is he?

is he for bigger government or is he for smaller government? i believe we would not be in this position today if it were not for republican votes will present bush was in office and the president obama and the democrats have done since then. this is a bipartisan problem that we are in. i believe that using the tool of the debt ceiling, i made the analogy that this is like solomon saying, this is -- give me a sort, let's cut the baby in half. it is a drastic action, but it is necessarily -- but it is necessary. neither side will listen. we need a drastic action to bring an adult kind of behavior to the budget of washington,

d.c. private firms laid off people, went bankrupt in this process. the government thinks that it can avoid that painter rate that is what i think a lot of people are saying up here. >> just so we can say it's clearly and get it clear in our heads, a trillion dollars. even if his budget was to take hold, 9 trillion would be added. 2060 is when this would eventually balance. a trillion dollars, just so the average joe gets his mind around that. the time of christ's birth, if we spent a million dollars a day from the time that christ was born, we would not hear it today -- we would not have

spent $1 trillion. we cannot sustain this type of spending. it is amoral, impractical, and became today to say, we will not tolerate this any longer. >> mr. temple, would you say that big government democrats and republicans are intentionally waging economic war against the private sector? >> yes. that is the result. what got us out and the street two years ago, $13 trillion in debt fostered by the federal government. many may and freddie mac. while the american people trusted their government representatives, they were spending like drunken sailors.

both parties. when i came out in atlanta, in february, found 40,000 americans, the largest number of people ever assembled before the golden dome, i thought, these must be conservative republicans. when i started asking them, they said, we are democrats. how can this be? the resounding answer was, $13 trillion in debt. this is not about party. this is about the american people being feta with its government -- being fed up with this government ought to let children. >> [inaudible]

i have not heard very much about efforts for the tea party endorsing in terms of tighter regulation and performance -- i wonder if you could swear a little bit quiet these things went away. >> this team is not there. the two are in bed together. we understand that. it is the government that has to -- has the responsibility of oversight been doing what benefits the american people. if fannie mae and freddie mac are being overseen by the federal government, and our representatives allow zero subprime mortgages all over the place and big business is playing to that, to have the responsibility to bring it under control? the federal government has the

responsibility to not be playing games at the cost of the american people. it is the american people -- we are not for a big business getting away with murder, but we understand u.s. the responsibility to make sure that it does not happen. we're after the federal government first. >> why would you advocates budgets for the sec? >> you sell the 2500-page to help care bill. that is the kind of ridiculous paperwork and even wrote government produces in which big business can hide. it is regulation that we need to remove. we need to give the country freedom, not more paperwork. all of this is one big barrel

that our federal government -- i am 60 years old. the department of commerce, the department of labor, the department of interior, all of these unconstitutional departments have been created over the last 80 years. their power does not belong here. it belongs in the states. we wanted a government caught, not just both parties talking about freezing spending, we want to see, scott. we want to see agriculture cuts. the first responsibility of government is to protect its people and they are not doing anything about our borders, they are not doing anything about our data, and they are creating their own little world where they can retire on million dollar retirement with their own health-care plans. they have created a house of lords down here. >> even before the dodd-frank

bill, the financial services sector was second only to nuclear energy for being the most regulated industry in america. it was government actions, the corrupt system of subsidies, that was the mass anti- government came in and build up the people who made mistakes, that is what angered at the grassroots americans. that is why we see these stories both fannie mae one another $9 million, that is the problem. do not come to the taxpayers asking for money. >> last question, right here. >> it sounds like you are saying that the government is responsible for oversight, but we needed deregulation? >> the government is too big for

its britches. it is not what the founders intended. " we have now in washington, and we will be running around washington taking a look good all of the apart -- departments. >> you said that we could raise the debt ceiling. can you elaborate? >> we come to the card game. if we're not just handing over our chips to the liberals on the other side. if you want to raise the national debt ceiling, and we gave you eight, nine things that we might consider, including getting rid of obama-care, we will play our cards one step at a time. if you want to raise the debt ceiling, what are we going to get in return? that is the way that this card game is going to get played.

>> again, we are not all in agreement about specific issues. we're all in agreement about the big picture. let me talk about this debt ceiling. let's argue first before we even get there, if we did not raise the debt ceiling right now, forever and ever and ever, it is stuck at $14.30 trillion and will never go higher. the government has to run a surplus in that situation because we borrow money from social security every month and that adds to the debt. we will need to run a surplus to never raise the debt ceiling again. if you pick your program they did you can pick two or 10 or 100. paid the interest on the debt, pay social security, paid defense, paid veterans benefits. to assist those four things.

everything else in the budget, has to be cut on average 85%. that is how far out of what this budget is. what william is saying is that -- i think -- is that if we did not raise the debt ceiling, the mayhem of spending cuts would be so far reaching and so dramatic that it would tear departments up and parts of the economy to shreds. you cannot cut 85% of all spending like that. all right? what you need is -- at least i think everybody knows deep down that the debt ceiling is going to have to go up at some point.

what i believe needs to be done is that it needs to be used as a tool to get spending cuts. if you can do it in a little bit at a time, we will raise the debt ceiling for one month. you'll have to vote on it 12 times this year. the whole point is that spending has to get down and this is the tool, the weapon of mass discipline, that can be used to do this. if we can get spending down very quickly, we can buy did the -- balance the budget in six years. the bottom line is, we have to get something like that done. everybody realizes that there has deep some movement in these issues. >> new zealand and canada both did exactly that, from spending in the 1990's, they both went from very large deficits to

budget surpluses. it is possible to freeze spending. it may require a short-term increase to the debt limit, but get something real and exchange. that fight does not leave us hopeful for the negotiating skills of the gop. >> thank you very much for covering desperate we invite all americans to attend the freedom jamboree on october 1 and second in kansas city. >> it is september 30 and october 1. >> we are inviting all potential presidential candidate to be there as well. thank you for your time today. it has been a pleasure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> joe biden and hillary clinton expressed concerns about human rights in china. in about 45 minutes, the prime minister of pakistan denies claims that his government knew and osama bin laden's whereabouts before he was killed. another look at relations between u.s. and pakistan. later, at john boehner at the economic club of new york on federal spending and the debt ceiling. several livens to tell you about tomorrow. officials from the justice department and federal trade commission testify on capitol hill about protecting the privacy of smart phones. witnesses will also include representatives of google and apple. that is here at c-span at 10:00. also i 10:00 on c-span [no

audio] -- the coast guard budget request about the next fiscal year. later, at 3:30, president obama will be in a paso, texas, for a speech on immigration, the economy, and security. >> every weekend, experience american history. it is 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here first-person accounts from people of shaped modern america. travel to important battlefields to learn about the key figures and events that shaped an era. every weekend, this college classrooms across the nation as professors delta and to america's past. join collectors and historians behind the scenes at the museum

exhibits and historic sites. american history tv on c-span [no audio], all weekend, every weekend. >> the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of the climate change trees and the limits of international law. his books include "law and social norms." he will take your calls, e- mails. live on c-span booktv. >> joe biden and hillary clinton expressed concerns about human rights in china. they spoke at the beginning of

the annual economic and strategic dialogue between the u.s. and china. tim geithner is urging china to allow its currency to increase in value, a move that makes u.s. exports cheaper there. this is 45 minutes. >> we are delighted to welcome you here to the department of the interior. along with the national parks that have been established. it is a very historic building, which is appropriate for the third round of the strategic and economic dialogue. it is such an honor to host the vice premier, a state councilor, and the entire chinese delegation on behalf of

secretary geithner and myself. i am very pleased that we are joined by so many officials and experts from throughout both the united states government and the government of china. we are delighted that we will shortly be joined by a vice- president biden. i know that president obama is looking forward to meeting with the leadership of our to governmental teams later today. the strategic and economic dialogue is the premier formed in a bilateral relationship that is as important and complex as any in the world. since the first gathered in washington back in 2009, the depth of our discussion and the participation across our two governments have grown significantly. through these meetings, both the

informal conversations, like the ones we had last night over dinner, and the formal meetings, we seek to build a stronger foundation of mutual trust and respect. this is an opportunity for each of us to form the habit of cooperation that will help us work together more effectively to meet our shared regional and global challenges and also to whether this agreement -- disagreements when they arrive. it is a chance to expand the areas where we cooperate and to narrow the areas where we diverge. while both of us hold firm to our values and interests. number never come up with two years of dialogue behind us, success depends on our ability to translate good words into concrete actions on the issues

that matter most to our people. as we began this third round, we will keep that goal in clear focus. i work really begins with our commitment to better understanding one another, into building trust between each other, and to working to avoid misunderstanding and a miscalculation. we all know that fiers and misperceptions link para on both sides of the pacific. i will be very open about that. some in our country to see china's progress as a threat to the united states. some in china worry that america sticks to constrain china's growth. we reject both those views.

we both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. the fact is that a thriving america is good for china. a thriving in china is good for america. to work together, we need to be able to understand each other's intentions and interests. and we must demystify long-term plans and aspirations. that is why, for example, secretary of defense robert gates and died has spoken often about the end -- and i have spoken often about the importance of developing military to military engagement that increases transparency and familiarity. i am very pleased that for the first time, senior military officials from both sides will participate in this dialogue.

they will join civilian counterparts to discuss how we can reduce the dangerous risks of misunderstanding and a miscalculation. in particular, i would like to thank deputy chief of the pla for being here. we're also working to build greater understanding and trust between our citizens and to foster stronger ties between our students, our businesses, and our communities. expanding on the consultations that were held here in washington last month. that includes the 100,000 strong program. this is a program to boost educational exchanges and to create new links between of entrepreneurs and investors. i am looking forward to lunching with business leaders from both

of our country's. we're also emphasizing programs to connect women leaders and a new initiative to bring together state and provincial officials. of course, we want to continue our strong people to people diplomacy. building mutual trust and respect will help us to solve certification problems. we both have a great stake in curving climate change and charting a clean energy future. we both care about promoting responsible and sustainable development are around the world, and we both are committed to stopping the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons. china and the united states face a wide range of common, regional, and global challenges. how our two countries worked together to meet those challenges that will help define the trajectory of our

relationship going forward and the future of prosperity and progress of the world. whether it is the global financial crisis or the other people and the middle east, recent history has underscored the link between our economies global stability. we will be discussing the need to work together to rebalance the global economy and assure a strong, sustained future growth. there are some very important international security issues we will be discussing. as permanent members of the united nations security council, the united states in china came together to enact tough sanctions on iran and now we're working to implement them. car to countries share a vital interest in maintaining peace and stability on the korean peninsula and that includes the complete denuclearization of the peninsula.

we can -- we continue to urge north korea to take concrete actions to improve relations with south korea and to refrain from further provocation and we want to see north korea take irreversible steps to fulfill its international obligations toward denuclearization. like any two great nations, i would argue like to -- like any two people, we have our differences. like friends, we discuss those differences honestly and forthrightly. we will be continuing the discussion of the recent u.s.- china on human rights dialogue just held in beijing. --ve made very clear that our concern about human rights. we worry about the impact on our domestic politics and on the politics and the stability in china and the region.

we see reports of people, including public interest lawyers, artists, and others who are detained or disappear. we know over the long arc of history, societies that work toric respecting human rights are going to be more prosperous and stable and successful. that has certainly been proven time and time again. but most particularly in the last months. this dialogue offers up a forum to have these candid discussions while continuing to focus on where we are going to cooperate effectively. i am fond of finding chinese saying send proverbs. i use one that has been the real inspiration for our participation back into a dozen 9 -- 2009. we have to grow in the same direction to get anywhere. there is also a wise chinese

expression that says, when confronted by mountains, one finds a way through program blocked by a river, one finds a way to bridge to the other side. we are here to keep building those bridges and we're not doing this alone. we're part of a web of institutions and relationships across the asia/pacific and the world. the united states is practicing what we called diplomacy. we're expanding our presence at high-level and agents -- in engagements. we brought in our involvement with multilateral institutions. president obama will participate in the east asian summits. we have a lot of work ahead of us, both bilaterally and regionally and globally. we have a lot to cover any short time great again, i am delighted to welcome all of you here to express my confidence in this

relationship. and in the importance of this dialogue. it is my great honor to invite vice premier wong to addressee. -- address you. [applause] >> we are gathered here today for the third round of the dialogue. i would like to express sincere thanks. he asks me to convey his

greetings to president obama, vice president biden, secretary clinton, secretary geithner, and all those who worked -- the present highly appreciate the important role. strengthening communication and competition -- cooperation between our two countries. we hope that both the chinese and u.s. will make the next round of dialogue, to further enhance mutual trust. we look forward to the implementation that we -- of the agreement that we reached with president obama.

last january, the president paid a visit to the united states which achieved a good success. it opened a new page in the china-u.s. relations. china-u.s. relations have kept moving forward. we are interdependent and mutually complimentary. the net is states is china's second largest import market. china is the fastest-growing export market for the united states. together, china and the united states account for one-third of the world gdp and one-fifth of global trade. china-u.s. relationships have far exceeded and have acquired a

growing global significance. we are witnessing profound and complex changes in the world economic landscape. at present, we still face many uncertainties. economic and social development in china and united states faced those common challenges. there are both -- there are clashes and our respective policies. however, we have far more shared interest than differences and competition. both sides of must make better use as a framework for examination of long-term and strategic issues and take a forward steps.

dear colleagues, the past and present have proven and the future will prove that nothing can hold back china-u.s. cooperation. we have confidence in that. our confidence comes from the common interest between our two countries, the shared aspirations of our two peoples, as well as historical reflections. one action is better than 1000 words. deep in our cooperation in economic trade, investment, infrastructure. we will contribute to the strong growth of the world

economy. i was the third round great success. thank you. [applause] >> i w