els back in this morning. live house coverage here on c- span. host: in a national address tonight, president obama is expected to spell out his plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from afghanistan this year and also calls for the removal of 30,000 troops by the end of 2012. the address is expected to last 10 minutes with one reference to the killing of osama bin laden. after the senate confirmed panetta to be the next defense secretary on a vote of 100-0, it

will be the first job for him. fed chairman ben bernanke will give the fed's view of the economy. good morning, everyone on this wednesday morning. on "washington journal" we will talk to two lawmakers about the ongoing debt talks, the state of the economy. democrat representative himes and republican, john campbell. the president unveils his afghanistan strategy going forward and congress debates are involvement in libya. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. the phone numbers are on your screen. frank joins us on the phone this morning. he is defense and foreign policy reporter with "congressional quarterly." let's begin with the ideologies from both parties when it comes to engaging in war. how have they thought about it in the past? how has it changed?

guest: we seen a significant change, specifically in the republican party as it relates to afghanistan. for a long time, republicans were very pro-afghanistan. although, averting their attention from the work for several years during the iraq war. there's a definite split among republicans right now, especially among some of the fiscally concerned new republicans in congress and some of the old guard, such as john mccain, for example. among democrats, a very strong group on the left of the party, 80 or 90 members who have been against the war from the outset. the president will have to walk a fine line to try to find a place, that sweet spot, between all these people to get enough votes to sustain the effort in afghanistan. there are some strong feelings right now, especially after the killing of osama bin laden, the political dynamics, at least,

have changed significantly in the congress. host: and the budget situation, the economic talks, the debt talks -- how does that play into this? guest: when you have so many huge issues at play at once, everything finds its way onto the table. there are those fiscal conservatives who may turn around and hold this afghanistan thing over the president's head and there are definitely some democrats who could do that, also. it's a relief fluid and dynamic situation. it is also interesting that you see how tough it is when you saw the exchange between john mccain and senator manchin on the floor of the senate, where senator manchin was calling for the united states to get out of afghanistan much more quickly and john mccain said he did not know what he was talking about. you are starting to see tough discussions going on in congress. host: we are about to show our

viewers that exchange on the senate floor yesterday. what do members of congress want to hear from the president tonight when he gives his speech? >> i think there will be groups within the congress who want to see large numbers. chairman of the armed services committee put a number to it yesterday and said he wants to see at least 15,000 troops withdrawn from afghanistan. you have others, like john mccain, who say the president needs to go very slow and go very careful because there is a concern that there could be a backslide in afghanistan -- that there has been a lot of gains made and more stability then we have seen in a long time in afghanistan and that to pull out u.s. combat troops could have a negative effect. of course, the president has to deal with the left and they want to see very high numbers. some of them want to see a

complete withdrawal. he has a very tough line to walk. it is election season. obviously, we're now into the 2012 election season and all these things begin to play into it. host: what do the generals on the ground want? guest: they want to see a more conservative step. initially, they were thinking in the thousands, of the low thousands. i think the president probably had a desire to go much higher. you will probably see something around 10,000 or so. there may be a larger number as we roll into 2012. for some people, that may not be fast enough. host: the house debates defense appropriations this week. how might all of this, the speech tonight and the strategy in afghanistan, impact to the debate on the house floor? guest: it will be interesting to see. it's an open rule as far as i can tell. that means we do not know what

kind of amendments we will see. obviously, the house is a very strong rule about germain this. a lot of discussion will probably about the war funding portion. there could be some amendments that could try to defund the war in afghanistan. host: and what about libya? the debate continues over that and our involvement there. the house and senate are considering proposals. what is on the table this week? guest: i think you will see a lot of activity, but i'm not sure if you will see anything concrete, out of the congress yet. there's a great deal of business on the issue. -- heirs a great deal of this is -- there is a great deal of the business. there are so many things in place. oliveri, thank

you for your time. let's talk to ron, a democrat in miami. go ahead. caller: yes. thank you. i have a problem with all these wars going on that we have to -- going on. we have to realize that we cannot just keep going in and fighting these wars. we have to understand that israel has a lot to do with it. if we saw the israeli problems, we could solve the war on terrorism. host: linda, a democrat in pennsylvania. what do you think? when should the u.s. engage in war? caller: hi. thank you. i do not think the question should only be when we engage in war, but also what types of war. just like the cold war, we had to use different tactics. we should use the same tactics

terrorists use on us, like covert and intelligence, as well. it would be a lot more reasonable and easier to win. >> when it comes to afghanistan, you would like to see something that's more counter-terrorism. caller: and also something -- 9 yearso fight 9/119 now and just spinning our wheels. host: let's listen to what happened on the senate floor yesterday when senator manchin talked about what he wants to see from the president on afghanistan. >> mr. president, we can no longer cut services and programs at home, raise taxes. or -- this is important -- lift the debt ceiling in order to

find afghanistan. 10 years ago, it was a just and rightful mission to seek out and destroy those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of innocent americans. we overthrew the taliban government. we hunted down and killed osama bin laden, as well as most of the senior members of this terrorist group. the question the president faces and we all face is quite simple. will we choose to rebuild america or afghanistan? in light of our nation's fiscal perils, we cannot do both. host: senator john mccain came to the floor after senator manchin made those comments. here is what he had to say. >> i feel compelled to respond to the statements from the senator of west virginia that carries the isolationist withdrawal, lack of knowledge of history attitude that seems to

be on the rise of america. in case the senator from west virginia and forgot or never knew, we withdrew from afghanistan one time. we withdrew from afghanistan and the taliban came, eventually followed by al-qaeda, followed by attacks on the united states of america. the senator from west virginia expressed his admiration for the men and women who are serving. i hope he would pay attention to the finest military leader, who will now be the head of the cia, general petraeus, who i thinks knowledge and background. it is not our expenditures on afghanistan that are the reasons why we are now experiencing the budget difficulties that we are experiencing. host: charles, a democrat in

oregon. you are on the air. when should the u.s. engage in war? caller: i believe we've been at war with ourselves. everyday citizens are attacked by the officials that run the county's, governments, and none of our civil rights are upheld. we have thousands and thousands of our own civilians sitting in prisons that should not be in prison. they're in for domestic violence and drugs and people who love kill their children are not dealt with. they are accumulating more and more money of our tax dollars that we need for our work force. host: a democrat in pennsylvania -- your thoughts. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think john mccain is a senile old fart. senator manchin is right. our president, barack obama, who

i support, has flown more drone missions over pakistan and eastern afghanistan and has killed more terrorists and that's the way we need to handle this. we need that money home. we need that money here. host: terry, when do you make that decision that we are not going in with ground troops, but we will go in with drawn attacks and try to come in this case, get rid of al-qaeda, wherever they may be? when do you make that decision and how? caller: we have to rely on the cia and our intelligence around the world. when you determine a hot spot, you hit. host: you trust the cia implicitly? caller: yes, i do. that's what people get paid for. i trust them.

let them do their thing. i want the money home to create jobs and provide health insurance for americans. if you do not have good health, you do not have anything. we need to take care of americans. host: you think congress should approve those type of drone attacks or should that be a call that the commander-in-chief makes? caller: ideally, i would like congress to do it, but the republicans are so not picky -- are so not picky -- are so nitpicky. look at john mccain. you have to get up with the times. host: what about the diplomatic fallout of going into these countries and attacking without letting them know? caller: i do not care. it does not matter. corporate america needs the protection.

we need to be around the world. that is why they hate us to begin with. if they do get radicalized, then our people, our cia and intelligent people, should take them out. i do not really care. host: let's hear from a republican. bob in tennessee. bob, go ahead. caller: ok. yes, i would like to say i yes, i would like to say i believe in our generals and i believe what they say. i believe the pressure is enhanced right now. the pressure is against them with obama and the people around them. right now, i believe, with the way they are running our economy -- craziness.

we have to stop spending money that we do not have to give to -- things that have no needs. if we have no country, just like no borders. host: this is "the washington post." it says --

host: a little bit about the afghani president, hamid karzai. host: by the way, the confirmation hearing for him to be cia director is this thursday, tomorrow, and congress. the handover was originally scheduled to take place in

september, but officials are trying to give david petraeus a bit of breather. in newet's go to al york. independent caller, what do you think? when do we engage in war? caller: good morning, c-span. host: good morning. caller: speaking as a combat veteran in vietnam, i think we should set some ground rules. i think we should bring back the draft. we should not be privatized army. second, i think we should put a profit cap on all manufacturing

of raw materials. all this is necessary. i love my country. i believe, when the fight is right, we go in full force. i also believe that unless our nation is directly threatened, we have a mechanism called a special forces. these are highly trained soldiers, professional soldiers, who have shown what they can do. they are good. we should link a drain any kind of war when the nation -- we should only engaged in any kind of war when the nation is brought to the war and not outsource so the people can say that this has gone on too long and cost too much. we know the argument. it's time to get back to rebuilding our country first. that's how i feel about it. host: when you say bring the nation to the war, what do you mean by that? caller: when you declare war --

declaring war is partially political and legal proposition. the president has to go before congress. congress gives the right to declare war. if we go back to 10 years ago, george bush went to congress, but they were bullied into going into iraq under the pretext of going after osama bin laden in afghanistan. they circumvented the actual process of declaring, "yes, this is a just war and this is what we're going in for, and the total goal is victory." now we have two wars and possibly a third. they're going to grind on and they are taking the pride of our nation, the young men and women, and busting them up. we will pay for that for the rest of their lives. that's our obligation. i think that we really have to

have the american people behind not only the military, but behind congress and the president. it is a team effort. that's the only way you win a war. host: what about libya? caller: i was really against it. i thought president obama's "follow the north star" speech was a bunch of crap, frankly. this gives them not only the radical element of those countries the excuse to overthrow, whether it is a dictator -- dictator -- that's not for us to judge. i thought that gaddafi found religion on the beach with his son one day and gave up his nuclear weapons and we love the guy. now all the sudden we hate him and we want to kill him? it's not our fight.

we fought our revolution. we fight our wars. you cannot fight other people's fight. host: here is "the washington times" with the situation in libya and the debate happening in congress." is says -- it says -- "the house will vote on a competing resolutions."

host: william is a republican in spokane, washington. you are next. good morning. caller: i am 100% disabled veteran. when do we engage in war? when we have vital attack or are threatened. other than that, men and women die for political reasons. thank you. have a great day. host: does afghanistan qualify under those terms? caller: no. libya did not attack us. we have not been attacked since

9/11 or since pearl harbor. host: the argument is that al- qaeda was hiding out in afghanistan or pakistan and as the reason we needed to go in. caller: is vital interests are threatened, then we go in. host: here is the world news section of "the financial times ." host: on that note, there are other potential presidential

candidates weighing in on this. pawlenty inw you pla "politico." host: we will go to which topped kansas. thomas, a democrat, go ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. may i first give al from new york a big "ditto"? he is right on right away. before i get to the war issue -- i am a veteran. i'm sitting next to my 87-year-

old mom, who is a world war ii veteran. i have to get this off my chest. there are people who feel exactly like i do about this twitter thing. everybody calls them twitterers or tweeters. i call them twits. ok, i will get off it and go to the war. yes, we should have gone to afghanistan. yes, we should have found bin laden within the first 30 days. i guarantee you that -- mr. bush, are fine president from texas, took his eye off the ball

and he went over there to settle a score with saddam hussain pillhe. no, we should not have gone to iraq. we should not have gone to libya. we are non in there. they did not do anything to us. the dude from washington said it with feeling. fight your own civil wars. the heck with them. host: thomas, we will leave it there. here's a swtweet. the purpose of that is to get as many voices in the discussion as we can. robert in michigan, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: first of all, you an awful call from

somebody from ann arbor, michigan a couple months ago and i want to apologize for that. in michigan, we are not like that. he was being a jerk. al, will, and tom said everything that i wanted to say. al, i am vietnam veteran, too. welcome home, brother. i see the correlation now between the vietnam war and the afghanistan war. we are getting bogged down there. you know, the vietnam war ended a long time ago and i'm still not sure of what our mission was there. now i'm beginning to question what our mission is in afghanistan.

host: robert, as a veteran, has your view changed over the years about when the u.s. should get involved? caller: well, as a christian, i want to help anybody that i can, but sometimes it is not economically feasible to do that. we are running into that dilemma right now. we cannot afford to help anybody right now. we have run out of money. we are being taxed to death. like i said, as a christian, i want to help anybody that i can. host: that is the issue "the new york times" reports this morning, saying that --

host: long beach, new york, joe, independent scholar. good morning. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. i see a difference. i never thought that lyndon johnson took the political heat or the score and he should have. ran against goldwater. he warned this country that if goldwater was elected, it will send your son to die in southeast asia and he said he would not. he has never been held for that. i'm little annoyed with your topic this morning, that there's a big comedown in afghanistan -- a big town down in afghanistan.

10% is nothing. the announcement should have been -- we have bad news for you. a year-and-a-half from now, obama announced a 90% of the troops will still be in be dying,an, still the guidi and still be spending. he has to look like he's doing something, so he makes announcements that have no consequence. you are bringing home 10% in a year-and-a-half from now? we want our troops home today. host: if he says tonight he's going to remove 10,000 troops by the end of the year and 30,000 by the end of 2012, that is still nothing to you? caller: we got them there faster. get them out faster. they're not serving a purpose. every day that we kill somebody -- understand this. every day that we kill somebody,

we create somebody that hates us. they have cousins, brothers, nephews, uncles that want to do us harm. i do not blame them. we have to stop bombing and killing people. host: what does that mean when you are debating whether or not to go to war? caller: do not hide in the bathroom afraid to vote. bathroom afraid to vote. both the congress like fdr and ask for a declaration of war. host: front page of usa today -- of "usa today." panama city, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. for c-span. my son is currently -- he has

invaded iraq at the tip of the spear. i'm sick to death of the ivy league mafia destroying the economy and destroying our wonderful reputation around the world. these wars are in the league mafia wars of the venture -- are ivy league wars of adventure. if we could draft bill gates' son, then maybe there would not be so many wars of adventure. i'm looking for a republican candidate to stand up on stage and say, "enough. i am pulling them all out. when you have a country, sent a flag, and we will send an ambassador >' caller: your question on why we would go to work, if we are

attacked, but i would say is more on the part of not why we should go to war is because somebody says they do not like us. why are we going to these wars because somebody said they do not like us? if we had a draft, i think we would be more conscientious about going to work. we have soldiers committing suicide. drones should be banned, not only in war, but also in the united states, and not over the borders or anything. of those are like nuclear weapons. you do not know who is being struck. as long as we're striking innocent people with the drones, of course we are creating more problems.

we are creating more problems by these forces -- host: as we said, president obama will address the nation at 8:00 p.m. this evening from the white house. the numbers in the papers today, 10,000 troops by the end of the year and a total of 30,000 by the end of 2012. on capitol hill, vice president joe biden continues debt talks with a bipartisan group of lawmakers. here is "the washington times." cantor is one of the members participating in the talks with joe biden. senator conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee, says $2 trillion is not enough. he says the goal of cutting $2

trillion falls short. host: and a republican in houston, texas -- anne, a a republican in houston, texas. caller: good morning. what the gentleman said about civil wars -- tribal conflict, civil wars go on and on. even though we have the rosetta stone, we went into iraq and afghanistan with hardly any of

our people knowing arabic. i thought that was clueless. they did not even know how to go door-to-door. you could not conduct intelligence. you just have to store around and threaten people and make civilians feel unsafe and not like us. i do not mind war, if it is the right time. i do not think drafting a senator's son is any better than drafting a poor farmer's son. i do not believe in the draft. anybody who is not a good person who comes here can just come here and get on amtrak with anything. we need to take our transportation and make it unified and safe, just like the airlines free we need to keep ourselves safe with technology and intelligence first and more last -- and war last. host: international news.

that's the world news section of "the wall street journal." front page of "usa today." "cigarette consumption has dropped, but has remained at 21% since 2003." laurel maryland, justin, an independent scholacaller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i agree with most of the callers who say we can only fight defensive wars.

i would like to make a couple statements about the current leadership. i was listening to john mccain yesterday do the introduction to the resolution. that guy has no idea what he is talking about anymore. his rationale -- he says the war powers resolution is unconstitutional. how can we have a legislative branch deciding what is unconstitutional? same thing with pawlenty with his article on isolationism. with their definition, almost every other country in the world is isolationist. that's not the definition. just like the white house is trying to change the definition of war. of war. it is just like an old way --

host: this tweet this morning about our question. conrad, a republican in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say i agree with the gentleman from maryland. we are involved with some wars that we have no business being in. it has never been determined by congress that we need to be in those wars. on the other side of the coin, we are seriously in another war with our southern borders and the attitude that the government allows these illegal immigrants to come to the nation. we are drowning our own debt -- drowning in our own debt on the war front and on illegal immigration. i believe in immigration. i believe it should be handled properly. we're completely off track with that. until we get that under control

and bring our troops back, this nation will not prosper. host: "the chicago sun-times" has this picture and many of the newspapers have this picture of michelle obama meeting with nelson mandela. the leader is reported to be very ill. you can see the picture there. her daughters were with her on that trip, as well. in politics this morning, an article about jon huntsman's presidential bid. we cover the entire event. you can go to the c-span video library. here is what they had to say.

host: again, we cover the whole thing. you can watch the entire speech on our web site. host: st. petersburg, florida.

andy, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to weigh in on when we should go to war and whether or not we should be involved. i do believe that currently, you know, if we send billions of dollars on technology and trying to decipher if someone is planning to attack us or may attack us, i do believe, if we do have sufficient information -- you know, there is hostility somewhere or someone is planning to kill our people, i do believe we have the right to protect ourselves. i do not believe that we should create unnecessary wars, like some of our past presidents

have. with our current president, i do support -- if we need to be in libya, by all means. i would hope that if we do go in there, we do it expeditiously. we go in, complete our mission, and get out as soon as possible. host: editorials on the issue this morning. "the washington times." that is their opinion. and then "the wall street afghan" says, "obama's afghan" says, "obama's j choice." "and the death of bin laden will be forgotten."

and then "the financial times" this morning writes -- "overdue, but only part of the solution." marianne, a republican. when do we engage in war? caller: the discussion is pretty much concerned with a shooting war. i'm thinking that is only part of the cost that we are underwriting all the time. we are in a defensive position around the world with the navy readied to engage wherever they're needed. i have not forgotten that when a ship was in yemen, we had 30 killed by terrorists. discussion should deal with the military costs and also

protecting our allies in bases all over the world. we are involved in a great expense that's pretty much beyond the radar a public notice. i feel of the attention should also involve that. host: two more headlines about newt gingrich's presidential bid. two fund-raisers abandon his campaign for president. that is "the washington post" and then "the wall street journal" had this headline. we will go to charleston, west region yeah. carmen, an independent. when do we engage in war? caller: am i on? host: you are on. good morning. caller: i am a korean war

veteran and i'm 78 years old. i can remember when they started peace talks in 1952. my last duty there was overlooking an outpost. i can think what is going on about these police actions all over the world and right now they're doing the same thing in afghanistan that they did in korea 50-some years ago and they're still talking. i cannot understand why we have to stay there and talks along -- and talk so long. it has turned into a political thing. i think our boys should come on home and let the politicians do that. host: coming up in 40 minutes, john campbell, republican of california will talk about the economy. that is our topic next, as well, when jim himes joins us.

we will be right back. >> this weekend on c-span2's booktv, erick stakelbeck. nobel prize winner michael spence on how the economy will change in the next 50 years. on president cleveland's secret surgery. >> mr. president, thank you very much. i feel deeply honored to become the director of the central intelligence agency.

>> with the senate confirmation hearing scheduled for this thursday, learn more about general david petraeus through his nearly 50 appearances on line at the c-span video library. every c-span program since 1987, all surgeable and -- all searchable and free. >> this weekend, booktv events on c-span2, including the child would fall of novelist and short story writer flannery o'connor. also, a tour of urban slavery sites and on american history tv on c-span3, travel to the founding days of savannah, georgia and explore a civil war savanna with a story -- with a

historian. this weekend on c-span2 and c- span3. >> i have the honor of representing the great people of the state of florida. today i speak for the first time on this floor on their behalf. >> all 13 freshmen senators have given their first speech honest -- first speech on the senate floor. daily schedules, each day's committee hearings, and videos of every house and senate session. keep up to date at c-span.org/ congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jim himes, democrat of connecticut. what do you want to hear from the president tonight? guest: i hope we hear the president is committed to a rapid drawdown of our forces. i spent a lot of time thinking

about this. i visited afghanistan and talked to the people on the ground. the reality is that we're in a nation-building mission in a nation that was not -- that does not want to be built. our problem was in pakistan. we're very effective in pakistan. we do not need to be fighting al-qaeda, which are bad people, but not the ones who went after us. i hope the president will announce a change in the mission from trying to rebuild afghanistan to going after terrorists in places like pakistan. host: we are hearing 10,000 troops. is that enough? guest: not for me. you read the same newspapers that i do. every morning, another couple of names. they are 22 and they are 21 years old. we're spending, between iraq and afghanistan, $100 billion every

single year. it's time for us to begin spending that money in the united states. host: let's talk about the debt. related, in a way, because people say we need to stop spending money overseas and we need to start focusing on domestic issues and that is the dead. dead. the vice-president is leading this group on capitol hill. are you confident they can come to some sort of deal? do you feel they need to? guest: there's no question that they need to. the debt ceiling is driving the scary.e -- it's very if we do not raise the debt ceiling, it means that we will not be able to service united states treasury debt. that's about as close to a financial armageddon as you can come. even the uncertainty that's out there right now, frankly, is making investors around this planet uncomfortable about whether the u.s. can stand up for its credit. people have this mistaken notion

that raising debt ceiling means we will spend more money. the reality is, the debt ceiling is there to make people feel better. of course, congress has raised it 75 times in 40 years or 50 years. i'm not saying we do not need to do hard work to reduce our debt and deficit. we do. to play with this notion that we are going to send out social security checks on people who are holding the united states bonds is a dangerous game. host: you say we will not spend more money. why not? explain that a little bit more. i think people do think that. guest: the debt ceiling needs to be raised to pay for commitments we have already made. these are not necessarily commitments the congress has made. their social security and medicare. they are interest payments on bonds that i mentioned before. you know, i've said this 100 times. if you are a member of congress and you ever voted for a spending increase, or a tax

decrease, and you did that in the last two or three years, it's the height of hypocrisy to say you will not raise to both -- to say you will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. we absolutely have to do the hard work to get our fiscal house in order. that will involve dialing back the spending the federal government does. we should not be playing with the debt ceiling right now. host: if there's a proposal for a short-term extension or raising of the debt ceiling for two months because this group cannot get some sort of bigger deal, will you vote for that? guest: i already voted to raise the debt ceiling. i got my head blown off for doing that. it was the right thing to do. anyone who understands the economy needs to do that. host: you are talking about the clean vote on raising the debt ceiling. guest: knowing it was going to

fail -- by the way, they spent time before that talking to wall street saying they did not really mean it. somethingather see along the lines of what simpson-bowles put out there. it was a relatively balanced proposal for dealing with spending, taxes, medicare, and social security. it would cause the world to say the u.s. can get it back together. this is congress. it's more likely we will see a shorter term deal. what ever we see, we need to vote to raise the debt ceiling. host: for you, medicare is on the table. your colleagues have said it cannot be part of the deal. guest: there's no way to live in this universe and to say that we can ignore medicare for the next 10 years or 20 years. medicare and the unfunded liabilities, which is a big word that means all the promises we

have made 2 of every american that's alive today, who is 80 years old or eight months old, if you run the numbers, medicare runs into a huge problems. by the way, it is nobody's fault. this is due to the fact that our country is aging. there's nobody that someone with a straight face can say that at some point we do not need to reform medicare. the question is how. do we do it the way paul ryan has proposed, which is a lazy way to do this? do we do the hard work of saying, let's figure out how to break the 12% inflation? let's bring down the cost over time so that states, companies, and others, are on a more sustainable path. host: a republican in kentucky. jim himes of connecticut sits on

the financial services committee. he worked at goldman sachs for many years. damon, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to take you to task a little bit forcing the taliban are not the ones that attacked us. it seems to be some revisionist history. i will agree it's a difficult situation right now. i'm not sure what the right answer is. to say the taliban did not attack us is not correct. they aided and abetted and participated in training camps there. are you going to tell me that the taliban did not know what was going on with the al-qaeda camps that were actively and openly declaring war against us and were plotting the 9/11 attacks? host: let's get a response from the congressman. guest: there's no question they aided and abetted. the taliban hosted al-qaeda. it's not the taliban's mission

to destroy the united states the way it is al-qaeda's mission. let's make no mistake. these are very bad people. they execute people publicly. they forbid women from being educated. these are very bad people. i do believe that because their core mission is more about taking afghanistan to the seventh century, as opposed to destroying the united states, there's an opportunity to negotiate with them, which, by the way, we are doing right now. al-qaeda, there's no negotiating with them. there's a distinction and it is an important distinction. it forces us to choose. do we go after the taliban -- very, very bad people. by the way, the world is full of bad people that we do not choose to go after. host: a tweet from a viewer. host: a tweet from a viewer. guest: you could cut all the

government spending today. you could decide we are not going to write social security checks, pay our troops, sent out social security and medicare checks, and it would still require you to raise the debt ceiling. it's not about new spending. the government will do new spending. it will continue to pay our young men and women in the armed forces. we will continue to said social security checks. we will continue to run the court system and the faa in this country. as long as we continue to spend in a deficit situation, which is where we are -- the reality is we have been running deficits for 10 years now under two from parties. if we are going to spend $1, a portion of that dollar will be borrowed. host: this person wants to talk a little bit more about medicare. guest: that is absolutely right.

that is absolutely right. that is exactly right. the reality is that medicare is complicated and it is critical to tens of millions of seniors. to think that the u.s. government should say, "here is the new deal. hope you like it." that's a bad idea. we need to have a discussion with the american people about what it means and what the issues are and get people bought into the notion that we have to do some things and it should be equitable. host: mike, democrat. lancaster, pa.. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my question is on the debt and on social security. i am totally against ending medicare. i'm totally against that. also, i'm going to be 62 years old in a few months. i am looking to collect my

social security. if they get this lot past where they want to raise the retirement age again, -- this law passed where they want to raise the retirement age again, will there be any protection for people such as myself? people such as myself? i their main mission is to make them look bad. guest: regardless of what republicans believe that their core, whether to do away with medicare or when obama passes a health care bill that involves reducing some funding, they stand up for the saviors of medicare. newt gingrich criticized obama for not being involved in libya and then criticized him for being involved.

the truth is that both parties like to demigod this issue. no party has a proposal to and medicare. paul ryan has a plan to shift the costs on to the people. this is part of the discussion but no one is talking about ending medicare. this is a discussion we will have over time. if the retirement age is raised, and it is a possibility as a have been in 1983 when there was a deal to is make social security more sustainable, but the proposal out there, particularly proposed by the presidents of debt reduction commission, would raise the retirement age a little bit over decades. you would not be affected. no one close to retirement would be affected. i might be for people younger than i might be affected, but

there would be a long ramp if that happened. and some guys ghetto where ties and work in offices and others have to do hard physical labor. host: joseph, a republican in indiana. you are on the air with jim himes. go ahead. caller: i am from indianapolis. as far as the taliban goes, i think we already eliminated that situation. i think the republicans are done. done. i think obama is getting too much credit. the sales did the job -- seals

did the job, and bush corrected this situation. host: james is next in birmingham, alabama. caller: i now one independent. let me explain something to you. you are disenfranchising around voters. this is the republicans sole agenda. they are trying to destroy this country, they don't care if there are no jobs. this is the only thing that they have to run on in order to get elected. mitch mcconnell said that his number one job was to make sure barack obama was a one-term president. you need to start say this and then they are saying -- where are the jobs? they are blocking every single thing that you are trying to do. guest: james is dead right about

this. and this is one of the frustrating things about being in the minority in the house right now. we've talked about everything except jobs so far, and we have 14 million americans out there without a job. we're going into month at number six here in washington, d.c. in which the republicans have not put forward a proposal on how to increase jobs in this country. increase jobs in this country. we've seen them defund planned parenthood and eliminate the epa, but what about 14 the and people without jobs? this is not just a bleeding heart. this economy does not turn around and a significant way, with 14 million americans who do not know what they're going to be able to buy through next month. this is a serious misplaced set of priorities says the majority took the house. host: did your leadership do enough on this job when they were in the majority?

guest: we did a lot and the numbers tell the story. the three months of around that, we lost to me and jobs gone now we're gaining jobs. we have seen 11 months straight of private sector job creation. the reason i'm not too happy about that, even though it is a major turnaround, the economy is growing, the markets are up 30%, but we do not celebrate that because we have not gone far enough. we should be doing everything we can do right now, whether building highways and railways and refurbishing the airports, let's do it when we can hire people to do it, or whatever else we can do to increase the number of jobs out there. in the "new quoted york times" as saying that the president has a tin ear when it comes to business.

guest: in the beginning, he had a bright group of people advising him. but he also did not appoint anyone to any position that had been a ceo of stature. this is more about perception and policy. now you have a period where do dd-frank is being written and the economy isn't a whole heck of a lot of trouble, and the business community says, does this president care about the private sector? of course he does, but calling bankers that cabs -- fat cats, that is what i mean by saying the had bit of a tin ear. there's a fantasy of the other side. clean air and clean water regulation, it usually what the republicans complain about, were put in place by richard nixon

who was not a democrat. i also do not know -- how can you look at what happened in of financial-services industry in the last three years where lehman brothers and bear stearns went bankrupt of the mortgage industry was utterly at a control, americans got sold mortgages that they did not have a prayer of repaying -- how can you possibly look at that and say the problem was too much regulation? regulation is not the only solution. they're all kinds of things we need to do, but there were clearly markets like the derivative markets, i did not even mention that, that were unregulated. they cannot be true going forward all we will find ourselves right back here. caller: i continued applause and the democrats philosophy. raising taxes on big corporations, because when you raise the taxes on corporations, they will only turn around and

pass it on to the small people as the cost of doing business. i like to know what you think about the obama administration telling south carolina -- telling boeing that they cannot build a factory in south carolina? they could take the factory to china. i just cannot understand by the obama administration would want to try to tell the corporation where they could set up business. that is stupid. guest: on your tax. bank, it is not the democratic position to raise corporation tax. it is the second-highest in the world, legally what they are supposed to pay. what they actually pay because of the loopholes is significantly lower than the 35% tax rate. most people, and i'm sure that

your 5 people they would say raise those taxes, but most say that what we ought to do with taxes across the board didn't lower the rate expand the base. it read the deductions, the many things that among other things cause individuals to spend agonizing hours preparing their tax return and cause corporations to have a huge tax departments. allyson the problem is people in washington would say let's lower those corporate tax rates so that we're competitive abroad, but let's get rid of a lot of loopholes so that we make up the revenue. host: the democratic collar. -- caller. caller: i have a comment. it is basically about the

government and the debt. i do not understand why so many people that have affiliation with the government do not see that the corporations are part of the debt going on, that we do not have the education of vacation -- education options for inmates. the majority are minorities, blacks, hispanics. instead of housing these people in jail on the government done, why not educate these people said that when they come out into the war -- so that when they come out into the workforce, they get additional funds to what we have? guest: i think you put your finger on something that is critically important both so the budget and to individuals.

in my home state of connecticut, it cost $30,000 to incarcerate an individual for 1 years. that is three times what it cost to educate that individual in a good public school, right? you could not be more right. and what do we know? we know that kids who are under educated at a much higher probability of getting incarcerated. clearly the answer is do what we need to do anyway, improve our schools, be willing to invest more that is what it takes. it is not just money, but make our schools goods so that fewer people are consuming $30,000 a years. and it is after-school programs, something to give children a sense of being part of something that is not hanging around or joining a gang. you put your finger on a really

important issue. host: we will go to pat, a republican from anniston, alabama. caller: congressman, i am not familiar with here you are a new name to me. but i heard one thing in the introduction that disturbed me terribly. you're the vice president of one of the financial institutions that cause the problems that created all of this mess to begin with. raising the debt ceiling to me is another tarp bailout. why should the people of the united states pay any attention to an ex-wall street insider as far as financial issues are concerned? guest: i sit on the financial- services committee, and the fact that i actually know a little something about the industry has been important to by participating in what is a major rework of that industry. you can look at my votes and you will see that sometimes i took

votes that were aggressively opposed by that industry. but i disagree with you. there is nothing in common between tarp, president bush's bailout of wall street, and the need to raise the debt ceiling. but it as starkly as i can. financial institutions were kept from going bankrupt by tarp. if we do not raise the debt ceiling, at some point you will not get us also security check. holders of government bonds will not get interest payments. these are commitments we have made to people all over the world where we say, we will not honor our commitment. tarp was something that president george w. bush cut out to save wall street. we can talk about whether it was a good or bad idea, but nothing in common between tarp and

raising the debt ceiling. host: ben bernanke will talk this afternoon and put out the fed's outlook. what do you want to hear from fed policy? guest: i am not sure that my building full of economists is any better than the fed's building of economists. it is clear that we are in a perilous moment in the recovery, but it is still a recovery. the housing market is still going down. as long as that is happening, american families are not going to consume beer you're not going to buy a car if you think your house is under water. -- i hope we hear something we should see a return to more vigorous growth in the back half of this year. host: if the debt talks include

eliminating tax deductions like the mortgage interest deduction in order to bring more revenue, would he think the impact of that would be on the housing industry as it stands now? guest: one of the secrets of this government is that we have dramatically subsidized homeownership in this country. and that is a good thing. american should be encouraged to own homes, but not by dramatically over-subsidizing it. we went way off the reservation in terms of making it almost easy for anyone to own homes. was not just the government, it was countrywide and other private players. but we needed to scale them back some. was clear that we have these negotiations about this budget, everything is on the table. noaa to say that mortgage interest deductions for the second home, for the vacation home, you cannot touch that. then the negotiation would not succeed.

we also need to think about timing. when the housing market is still struggling, it is not the time to do something that might make sense to do three years down the road. you have to be very careful about tinkering with the market still flat on its back. host: what is your view on fannie and freddie? guest: they should end up being a small sliver of their former selves. a lot of americans like the 30- year fixed mortgage. they want them that are affordable, we're going have some kind of government assistance. the 30-year fixed mortgages not a creature that exists in nature. my belief is that fannie and freddie should be completely revamped into very thin agencies that do targeted missions for very well on record -- underwritten loans. host: well would be eliminated

from their portfolio? guest: there were one of the most aggressive lobbying forces on capitol hill. people talk in awe about the armies of lobbyists. there are getting and the subprime mortgages, fannie and freddie and anything that involves a government should have nothing to do with subprime and alt-a mortgages. they should be a small agency that helps americans get 30-year fixed mortgages. host: there is a proposal to end fannie and freddie and have more government-sponsored enterprises that have to compete. guest: it is an interesting idea and there are a lot of discussions out there, from eliminated all, get the

government totally out of the housing market, which would be a very dramatic shift. at the end of the day, when in the american people understand what that means about the affordability of housing, i do not think that will be excepted. i have not dive deep into this proposal but think it is headed in the right direction. this would be very different than what they would do-what they used to be. it is a great discussion we will have a next couple of years. host: what about changing the lending process right now. there was a proposal put out by the administration that your debt to income cannot be more than 30%. that is what it used to be. why not go back to that? guest: there is no question that we need to get back to something more same with respect to underwriting mortgages. this is not just fannie mae and fha, it is in the private

sector. the private sector, i remember the billboard near my house saying no job, knowing come, no problem. that was insanity. making sure you're able to put making sure you're able to put down a reasonable down payment, and not just a down payment, but may be of little extra money in the bank said that when you need to replace the roof or fix the boiler, you can do it. i used to work in the affordable housing industry and it is a big jump from being a rancher, but some should be renters. to actually having the wherewithal to be of homeowner. host: good greensboro, north carolina, thanks for waiting. you're on the air, turn your television down. i will put you on hold. we will try to combat you. as they holyoke, massachusetts, john, a republican. caller: i used to be -- i am

going to be an independent. host: we are listening. caller: i used to be a republican, but i am going to vote for obama. i'm going to ask this gentleman a question after i make some points. to me this sounds like this is corporate democracy. the supreme court has been blocked. the patriot act is not to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, because we've already got them here. with the republicans going into office making deals with corporations instead of thinking about the american people instead of their own pockets. their grandkids are going to be ok. their family is going to be ok. but everybody else around here, the veterans and everybody else are suffering. all the things are being cut, ok? this is what i think the aware

of wolves in sheep's clothing. anyone who comes out of the private corporations to go work for government, they're not there for the best interest of the american people. this is corporate democracy. they're going to support the war. that is why the majority of people in jail or a the poor. the rich have not gone to jail. that's why these banks have not had a ceo go to prison yet. guest: you might be -- bernie madoff might be surprised at the rich have not gone to jail. but he is expressing all lot of anger that people feel. the banking industry, which was instrumental in causing the meltdown, almost nobody went to jail. jail. i snap off berni e madoff, but almost nobody went to jail.

the point he really makes is the supreme court. 3 he says that they were bought. i would not sign on to that notion but the supreme court threw citizens united, the decision that corporations and shadowy organizations could inject millions into the political process, was a huge blow to democracy in this country. i think it will be remembered as one of the things that if our democracy goes downhill, help to dismantle it. our founding fathers never had the notion that wealth the interest could buy elections. but to secretly sent to congressman and senators, it is deeply antithetical to our government. host: iowa, the last phone call for the government. caller: the stock about health

care coverage regulation, and taxes. but consumption tax would bring you down $14 trillion, medicaid has a $40 billion shortfall every year. you can cover that with $140 billion in a 1 cent tax. republicans are standing up and saying that corporations are being strangled, the government has the foot on their neck-and- neck cannot turn a profit. that is wrong. everyone can see that there turning corporate profits, they are going through the roof. how do you turn a profit if you got someone standing on your throat? guest: good point, victor. this idea that washington is standing on the corporation is hard to reconcile with exxonmobil reporting billions in quarterly profits a couple of weeks ago. the banks are reporting great

profits. you are absolutely right in saying that. we should have the debate on regulations and tax policy. the reality is when you strip away the politics, when it is the world of corp. versus everybody else, what we're really talking about comes to set up an economy so that corporations start out young businesses that compete with those corporations can get started, you should have a fair debate about taxes and patents. we'll be voting on a patent bill today. on regulations, there is some -- there is such a thing as too much regulation. how do we balance that with dirty air, dirty water, and dirty mortgage products without hurting the vibrancy of our industry which is for americans?

that is the debate we need to have. host: before we let you go, the house like it will vote on two different proposals on libya put forth by the republicans. one will prevent assets to combat in libya. the second would validate his current position but capet to one year and insist that u.s. troops not be deployed on the ground. had you planned a vote on us? guest: i have seen either so i cannot say how i would good. but i continue about this issue. i think this country has made a mistake by besting too much power to engage our forces abroad. in iraq in vietnam, the problem was that they did too much. i like to see the constitution which says that congress is to declare war, and the reason it is complicated, it is hard to

criticize the president for joining nato and other arab country in preventing gaddafi from massacring people in benghazi. but the bottom line, we cannot afford to and should not be going around the country anytime there is a bad thing happening in using our young men and women in uniform to change the outcome. maybe you think about it from time to time. bill clinton is still haunted by intervening in rwanda. was not a simple issue, but we have to get away from being the world's policeman. young people dying, and we are sending a hundred billion dollars on the military and security. we cannot afford that, going forward. there is no such thing as democracy in a box. we of s spent hundreds of years

figure out democracy in this year. countries have to struggle. we fought a brutal revolution. we cannot impose a. people need to buy into and fight for their own democracy in places like libya. host: jim himes, thank you for being there. we will talk more about economic policy with john campbell. but first an update from c-span radio. >> jon huntsman says the obama administration pace of troops drawdown in afghanistan is too slow. what we need to do now, he says, is have nation-building here at home. the president outlines his afghanistan troop withdrawal plan this evening. the honor of the raid that exploded last year in the gulf of mexico is planning bp for the

disaster. their report to be released today says that the deepwater horizon explosion was caused by several factors, including well design and construction, and that it has evidence that showed the peak failed to assess, and communicate risk. a lower opening ahead of the federal reserve decision on the -- interest rates. they have decided to keep rates at record lows. they're waiting to hear ben bernanke's comments. you can hear him and live at to the team picked him -- to 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span radio. >> c-span has launched a new ec website for the candidates. facebook updates from candidates and voters of reporters. the links to media partners in the party primary and caucus

states. visit us at our website. >> blackberry users can access programming anytime with the c- span radio afpak. -- app. you can also listen for signature interview programs each week. it is all available around-the- clock wherever you are. download it free from black. app world. "the supreme court" tells the story of the justices from their eyes. this new edition e-book in colludes in interview with elena kagan. with the enhanced e-book, add your experience of watching multimedia clips from all the justices. available now where ever e-books are sold. >> "washington journal" continues. host: california republican john

campbell with us for the next 45 minutes, member of the budget and financial services committees. republican of california, and we want to talk about the economy and housing policy but let me get you on the record on afghanistan. the president will produce tears by 10,000 by the end of this year. in not? too much? guest: not enough. we have 100,000 roughly right there and 10,000 by the end of year, up 10%, at that rate, we are there 10 more years? not enough. the issue with afghanistan is that there is no al qaeda in afghanistan. they are in pakistan. though the issues in pakistan will not change whether we are in afghanistan are not. we have killed osama bin laden. we've done what we were in there to do. what are we there for now?

all we tried to create some kind of jeffersonian democracy in this country that has been tribal for centuries? with talk about the taliban. there were actually our friends when we were fighting the soviet union. they're not an ideological group. host: what about al qaeda that is there? guest: most of them are in pakistan. they are in yemen, they are in syria, they are in iran, they are in the ivory coast. there in countries all over the earth. we cannot go and occupy every country where there is a terrorist cell. we have to have other ways of doing this, keeping these people from attacking us using technology, using intelligence, and using other sources and methods to keep them under control. we cannot occupy all of these countries. i do not believe that it is

worth the blood in the treasure to continue in afghanistan. i do not know what we're trying to accomplish now, what it will look like, or even if it is worth achieving it is nation- building. it is probably not achievable. it probably would not last. as a vietnam-era person, the similarities to vietnam are scary. they are absolutely scary in terms of laos and countries across the border where bad guys were assembling. we have the same thing with pakistan. we have a government that is friendly to us but has corruption issues. and the people may not like a pre this same thing with the karzai government. the similarities are too great. we need to get out there a lot quicker than that. host: your republican colleagues believe that you have laid out isolationism and it is on the

rise. guest: i don't know whether isolationism is the right term. and i do not necessarily run away from that term. away from that term. my view is not that the u.s. should be isolationist, that we should not be engaged in the international policies are around a world. we should. but when you look at what are threats are out there, these disparate perhaps -- threats located in many countries around world, we cannot use the strain -- the same strategy in pakistan that we did 50 years ago of going into a country and taking it over when it is not the government of the country that we were opposing. the enemies in that country are forming in some many different countries around the world, i would say to senator mccain is that we're not isolationist. but you cannot be using the same

strategies with an entirely different world and perhaps -- threat. i am not saying that we do not engage in these things. i'm saying we do not put boots on the ground. we do not keep engaging in all these countries. libya as another perfect is ample. i do not think we ought to be there at all. i hear the argument that they are killing their own people. they're killing their own people in yemen, in syria, in iran, and the ivory coast. what about these sudan? that is probably one of the greatest human tragedies in the recent era and we were not going in there. why libya all of a sudden? because they have oil? we have oil here in the u.s. and we're not drilling. if it is about oil, let's get

our own oil out of the ground. let's not worry about attacking libya and other countries. it is not isolation. we can engage diplomatically, weakening gauge economically, but that does not mean that we have to be putting boots on the ground and engaging our military forces every time there is a civil war in some countries around the world, unless the direct interest of the analysis are threatened. host: us talk about housing policy and fannie and freddie policy and fannie and freddie for you have a proposal to eliminate them, but put in place something very similar. guest: it is not very similar. there are many significant differences. this is a housing finance reform bill that has been introduced of bipartisan bill myself and jerry peters, a democrat from michigan. we're proposing to eliminate fannie and freddie, the two

thatsedly so-called gse's are making 95% of all loans. if that system failed, the government to come over in late 2008, they are now a wholly- owned subsidiary of the government. we're proposing is a completely different system. it is system whereby there will be a government guarantee, because without some form of a government guarantee, you will not have a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. an america that our housing is built on 30-year fixed rate mortgages. that is how the vast majority of americans have bought their homes. we are unique in the world having that system. having that system. in most countries, they have five-year loans or 15-year

loans. which means you buy a whole lot help -- whole lot less house would you buy later life. it is served america for many decades. we want to try to preserve that. we also want to preserve if the economy is good or bad or things are up or down, you can still buy a house or you can still sell a house and your buyer can obtain financing to do it. what we want to establish his consistency. and the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. you have have some government involvement, some government backing. that is why we are unique in the world. we have that government involvement. what went wrong with fannie and freddie back in 2008 was that

the government was basically the first dollar. there were there guaranteeing and backing all these mortgages from $1. our system would put a lot of private capital out there so that if things go bad, there is a lot of private capital will belt -- that will lose their money and protect taxpayer. but in the end, the government backstopping. i could go through all the details that we set up, the insurance guaranty association. host: the teams that would build up the private capital? guest: banks are private entities, private capitalize. but there's fdic insurance behind it, which is the government. when someone puts money into a bank, to under $50,000 or less, they know that the government is going to protect them if that bank goes under.

the other thing the fbi insurance -- fdic insurance does it takes many even if many banks go under. this is the same kind of system we are setting up. the private guaranty association -- banks pay for fdic insurance. when banks go under, the fdic steps in and texas system. if you ran through the fdic insurance, the fdic can assess those banks and refill the fund. protect the depositors and the banks and protect the taxpayers. it is a system that has worked well and has some pickups. banks have failed. but it allows banks to fail without breaking the system.

the system has not broken in seven years. we set up a very similar system here, very similar system to the fdic insurance, we'll have these private entities making the loans and will guarantee the loans. in the background, you have this government backing which the private sector pays for and funds, but that way the people making the loans, getting the loans, know that there is some backing for the system. well some of these loan entities failed? i expect that they will. but this will enable them to fail without cratering the whole system along with them. host: will you get of votes on this? guest: first we have to get up votes on it in committee. have not been told that we are or are not going to have one.

the one thing that there is unanimous agreement is there right now we had these failed entities, fannie and freddie, on by the government making 90% of these loans. no one wants that to continue. the question is what do you replace them with? host: summer st. and not replace them. let the private market work that out. guest: that is an option. but there will be no more 30- year mortgages in the market. then people beginning five-year and 15-year mortgages. for the same pay me, you'll buy 30% less house. housing prices could drop by 25% in a very short period of time. housing is one sixth of the economy. are the reason that we're

struggling is that housing has not recovered. in that case, you will send the economy into a tailspin and it will be a disaster. host: banks would not be able to give out 30-year mortgages? guest: they would not allow for the fdic will not allow it. complicated, but when you put money into a bank, when someone puts money into a bank, they can withdraw tomorrow. for the bank to take that money that might only be there for a day and lend it for 30 years, he gets them into trouble. that is why we have the savings and loans crisis in the 1980's for the regulators will not allow the banks to make 30-year loans. longsomeone gets a 30-year-ol from wells fargo, they sell that loan in order to protect the banking system. when you saw that in the marketplace, you get on my cell that where the marketplace will

buy them. the banks cannot make them, and the marketplace will not buy them without some government backing that secures those longs for those investors. that is what we have had. and many people in my party saying that we do not have to do this, the private sector can take care of it. take care of it. they do it in other countries, it true, but there are no 30- year fixed rate mortgages. you're putting all their risk of interest rates on the market was going up and down on the consumer, on the home buyer, rather a that on some long-term investor. marketcrater the housing in the economy and for what? i am a republican and a conservative. i do not like government involvement in things. but i do not like economic anarchy.

there's certain things that the government needs to do. it is there to do some things and we hope to provide a system under which the private sector can operate. having that little backstopped like fdic insurance in banks, and a lot of khalid said think we should not replace fannie and freddie with anything also think we do not need fdic insurance. we need that government structure. it works and it will continue to work and we needed in housing finance, and i feel very strongly about that. host: will go to steve, a democrat in chicago. caller: i love your show and i watch it every morning. host: the heading give us your question and comment. caller: good morning.

my question is put destroyed the housing market? it was of the banks? was that the credit defaults swaps that one around the world destroying economies? host: he wants to know who destroyed the housing economy. was that the bank's trading and buying credit defaults swaps? buying credit defaults swaps? guest: steve, yes, i'm trying to back up here. a lot people the that things in the economy go in straight lines. nothing on earth is straight line. everything is about rhythms and cycles. what happened is that -- to oversimplify it -- you have banking cycle where the banking system, because of the way the thing was structured, made all whole lot of long as they should

not have made. distracted them in a way they should not and did some very bad things. they counted on the government guarantee, no question of the totally wide open government guarantee at the heart of what led to this banking system access. it pulled around the world. and when housing prices took a dip, it did not take long before the whole system collapsed underneath it. " we propose is very different from that. it will not allow that kind of ridiculous thing where you can go and make a loan with an 0% down or-down, no credit, and with no private capital really involved. and where the government took all the risk, we're not going to allow that. your acquire at least 10% or as far as the government is concerned 20% down, and a

standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, but if you want to do these created things come if you have to do it with how -- outside of the government structure. if you want to make a ridiculous long, you can go ahead and do it. but we do know what to take down the system with you. host: so your proposal is for 20% down. guest: it says that you have to have 20% down. there has to be some capital at risk. someone have to lose the first dollar. you cannot have the government there because housing fluctuations will happen. if you did 10% down, the other 10 percent has to be guaranteed by some other organization outside of the structure we set up or held by the mortgage originator and ordered to do the

long. basically, a home buyer or someone who guarantees the home buyer outside of the banks are the government structure, they have to come in with 20% side down. host: jack is a republican in rhode island. caller: i want to intertwine my comments into the previous caller. the way the system worked as the congressman knows is getting these mortgages and then they are bundled together and then they are sold to investors across the globe. what ultimately is going on as more and more people are beginning to see because of 24 hour news is the world is under the control of a very elite international group of wealthy financiers. they call the shots. they call the shots in congress. they call the shots all over the globe.

more and more people are beginning to see this. i feel bad for the grandchildren that i have and other people's grandchildren, because i see the united states in decline. you take a look and our finances and we're going back to what the congressman initially said about the united states, one time being alive -- allied with the taliban, that was true. we were there to eliminate the soviet union. we are aligned with joe stalin. host: ok. guest: i will get into a lot of that, but to your comment, as i mentioned before, when someone goes and gets along, i would imagine as you say you're in the latter part of your life, maybe you on the home and you probably had a 30-year fixed rate

mortgage data labeled you to do. we're trying to make sure that that option is still available for your kids in your grandkids come my kids and my grandkids, going forward, because they is hal -- that is how we have built our housing system. in order to do that, somebody has to loan you that money. the banks cannot do it under the structure we have allowed to date. you talk about international financiers, and there are many people the woodlawn that money, but a lot of them are insurance companies, a lot of them are pension plans. you may have your pension plan. there are long-term investors with the long-term view. . some of them are international and summer in the u.s. they do not own this place. they own a lot of what they own they own a lot of what they own but they do not own a us, certainly. their interest is in you, the

person who wants to buy a house or sell a house. they need to borrow money to do that. that is the system we're trying to preserve here. yes, these people loan the money but we're trying to work it so that it works for both. if you can i get someone to learn you the money, did you cannot buy the house. that is going to restrict the american standard of living if we do not make it available. host: from twitter. guest: that is not the case here it all. the bank is still going to make the loan. they are still going to sell the loan until all that. host: under your proposal, if you're saying at least 10% side down, maybe even 20%. the administration has also said, the debt in come ratio cannot be any more than 36%.

i think he is saying why does the government no better than a loan officer who may know this person, living in a small town -- guest: all lawyers saying is that if you want this government backstop, if you have to fit into this thing that attacks the taxpayer. if you want to make a 0% down long, or a 5% side down long, or you want to make all loan to someone that is not particularly creditworthy, go ahead. you're just not getting any government banking -- packing. host: would they not be able sell that loan in the private markets? guest: they probably would not. that is the issue. if you cannot get someone to loan you the money on that basis, you probably will not get along. if they can get someone to loan the money on that basis, then they may make it.

do not ask for the taxpayer to step in and make a risky lung. that is the problem we got into before. we're only going to backstop the safe loans which are the standard long as they work throughout the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's. a lot of people bought houses and did very well under those circumstances. host: a democrat from wisconsin. caller: the morning, greta. we have here is wall street greed, congressional deregulation, and now we're going to have is the republican congress trying to get rid of thousands upon thousands of government jobs, union jobs, we're not going have anyone to buy at the house. and the only houses you will be of a cell are 20 to isn't

thousand -- you'll be able to buy are $20,000 houses with 20% down. guest: if i can break down what i think i heard you say, it's not so much criticism of what our plan is, but just concerned about the economy in general. i share that concern. that is probably beyond the scope of what we have to talk about this morning. there is no silver bullet to fix the economy. there are a lot of things in my view that we have to do. you cannot grow an economy without growing private sector jobs. that has to be first. i am not going into my ideas about things we ought to do to improve the economy and private

sector jobs. but this bill is one of them. housing is one sixth of the economy. it is not moving. we never come out of the recession without housing leading us out. all of the reason that we're stuck is that people do not know what housing finance is going to look like six months from now or a year from now. if i buy house, i do not know they will be able to sell it, or if they buy it, i do not know they can finance it. there is a lot of uncertainty in the housing market. this is part of bringing the economy back, because it is dealing with the biggest sector of the economy, it is providing some certainty that there will be these kinds of loans at going forward. it will bring money back into the housing economy and create a lot of jobs. that is one part, not the entire solution, but one part of a solution to bring the economy back. host: a tweed on that topic.

as good a st. joseph, missouri, a republican. caller: your idea is laudable. but how can we rescued the housing industry? when you have the anti-american anti-capitalist president who is destroying the private sector, who is not doing anything to revive the economy? he is taking the economy down more and more every day. how are you possibly going to rejuvenate the industry when he is in office? host: i am sorry, julie, i thought you were done. guest: i do not like many of the president's policies and i think much of what he is doing is hurting the economy and not helping. i do agree with you in that sense. but that does not mean that we should not do what we can do.

there are a number of republican ideas and republican thoughts about growing the economy, including energy production, that we should be getting all the domestic oil and gas and coal and ethanol and everything we can in order to provide as much of our energy domestically as we can, which would not only insulate us from some of the impact of other countries shouting things off, turning things on, but also would create tons of american jobs. the president does not seem to support that. but we're still going to talk about it and push it. we will see. we may not be able to get everything done before the 2012 election done, but that does not mean that we should not do something with the president that we both agree on.

i think that this is something that if we can pass this in the house, potentially passed the senate, it can be signed by the president. i have not heard anyone come out and say that this is dead on arrival, either from the white house or the senate. i think we ought to do what we can to. -- can do. if we disagree on 19 ad 20, there is a proposal that we can work on together. we have what we have and this is what the people voted for. he is the president of the united states, so we will talk about those things that we ought to convince him to do, but if there are some other things that we can do, we ought to try to do them together. host: cleveland, ohio, your next with john campbell. caller: i have a loan in i was wondering, would you get your

loan from gmac for countrywide, is that not a bank or mortgage company that is a bank? in my opinion, government is there for the protection of there for the protection of people from big business and corruption that they get involved in. everything starts out as a really good idea, like when we started fannie and freddie and government assistance for people that are lower in calm or disenfranchised, the group of people that through our history, we have pushed back and try to keep away. those people need help because they do not have the help. the government is in a position where everyone gets that have, not equal, but some sort of basis of fairness. guest: i think i understand and i agree with you, one thing, i

do not believe in economic anarchy. i think there needs to be government structure and some degree of government regulation around the various financial systems that we have for several purposes. one is for consistency of that so that people can count on if you're in and year out. another is to say to provide some degree of protection to consumers so they know when they go and that there is always going to be some degree of buyer you will never be able to go in and assume that you can do anything without paying the consequences of a mistake, if you make it, but there has to be some degree of support and structure. host: this twitter message -- under this plan, no new young people will be buying homes unless mom and dad can put down

a down payment. this will destroy the market. guest: first of all, we are trying to hold together the 30 year fixed rate mortgage. a young person will not be able to buy a home to until they're 60. for a long time. the first thing about that young person buying a home, maintain that fixed-rate mortgage so that people can buy a home and wait for their lifetime. the down payment, i understand that issue. you are going to have to save some amounts of money to buy a home. we cannot do both. we cannot give you a 30 year fixed rate mortgage without someone taking all of the risk. you are not going to be able to do that. that is part of what collapsed

the system before. if you buy a house with no down and it drops 5% in value, you can give that back to the bank. people will not alone on that basis. that is part of what created the system. we do not want to create that class again. there is a way in the structure where you have to get someone else to carry that 10%. that will enable young people to get into a loan. >> are there any restrictions on how much debt as a borrower might have? the administration has recently come out and said that the mortgage payment cannot be more than 28% of your income. >> the plan does not envision that as it is currently drawn. because there is so much private capital at risk, essentially the way that we are doing it right now, we are saying that banks

make a loan and they should evaluate the credit. if this loan goes bad, the first 30% of loss on the house will be borne by them. so, we think that backs is enough of a risk to them -- so, we think that that is enough of a risk to them. this is where the republican in me comes out. i do not want the government establishing who can buy a house and do cannot. let the market let people go out and do that. we are not the value waiting that. host: what about what you were talking about earlier? those requirements? guest: a lot of it was set by the banking system, not the government. back then the banks held the loans.

they evaluated the credit. they will still be doing that. we have got the backstop that enables consistency. host: josh, new york, thank you for waiting. caller: i appreciate your attempts to help the housing market, but why do you think what you are creating is better than the current, fannie and freddie? freddie? i think that people should buy what they can afford and what the natural market allows. guest: first of all, this is not ags the system. -- a gse system. those entities were guaranteed by the federal government from

the very beginning and were able to do all sorts of other things to make housing loans. it was a mess. we are not doing that. and there were two. if one of them went down, the entire system went down. they had a system of multiple entities that will guarantee these loans with private capital. the entities can fail. when they do the investors in those entities will lose all of their money and the taxpayer will be protected and the system will be protected. it is much more like the banking system. host: is the taxpayer on the hook at all? guest: that is the risk. but who loses money before the taxpayer? the bank that dunne's the loan,

the insurance system, the money that pays into the system, we have a fixed form of capital that is ahead of the taxpayer. that is ahead of the taxpayer. let me just get to that other statement. judge was saying that leverage created the problem. you are right. and we are not going back. what a 30 year mortgage enables you to do, if you buy a $200,000 house and you finance it over 30 years, you are going to have a payment. if you finance that same thing over 10 years, the payment will be substantially more. when most people go to look for a house, it is not a $300,000 house, what however, if i can afford the payment and we go from 30-year mortgages to 10 year mortgages, that payment

wilson -- finance a whole lot less. people will have to buy a whole lot less house and housing prices will come down. the wealth of most americans, most of their wealth is in the house and their retirement system, as well as savings. if you do that and housing prices dropping, you have destroyed the ralph of my -- the wealth of most americans. they will pull back farther and there will be another recession, which is what i am trying to avoid. >> i am 69 years old. -- caller: i am 69 years old. i grew up in the 1950's. my parents were 40 before they could get into a home. one of the reasons being that they did not have the benefits

that my friend's parents had. i do not hear that being addressed, with low-cost loans getting into houses. on the surface it sounds good to require the hired down, but there is a reality that is being missed here. the first is the fact that on most wages today you cannot say about that loan on the first down payment. part of the reason is we have become a nation of tenants. rentals are going up. there is not enough income left at the end of the month to establish savings. >> i am glad the to ask that question. let me try to do the last part first. when the crash happened in 2008 we had 59% home ownership in this country. almost seven out of 10 americans

on the road home. now it is down to something like 62%. more than six out of 10 americans own their homes. that is not a nation of renters. but at 69%, we probably got too far. not everyone should only home. not everyone can are only home. we are not looking for 100% home ownership. we tried that, it did not work. we have been down that road ended did not work. but having somewhere between six and seven out of 10 americans own their home is not a nation of renters. and it is not a bad thing. some people like renters, -- like renting, it gives them flexibility that owning a home does not. this is not to say that everyone

should be in one thing, but it is to say that there are options. veterans programs, the gi programs are separate from this. those are done by the military on their own and not as a part of the housing system. that can continue as it is over there. talking about low-income loans, things like that, the fha was set up for that business. that is fine. that can stay there. what we did, we blurred the line kreider to 2008 and we made loans for a lot of low-income people that had a hard time affording it. we kind of polluted the entire system with that and it fell down. if we are going to do that, fine, but let's do it with fha.

do not infect the rest of the system. then you know exactly what it costs and exactly what it is costing people to do that. another thing that you have to be able to do here, things are going to fail. banks are going to fail. things are going to happen in the cycle of life and the economy. where the whole system does not fall down with it. host: one last phone call here. robert, republican line. caller: almost any politician i have heard lately talks about getting the economy going again and not having these highly leveraged economy is. also, getting out of afghanistan and libya.

i like what he is saying and it makes sense. guest: thank you. that is a good call to finish on. [laughter] [laughter] i think that all of these things, quite often in this line of work, there is an ideology. my ideology guides by thinking, it does not replace it. we have to look at each system as it comes forward. we have a world view that we use to look at things, but not every government program is bad. not every government program is good. not every military action is worth it. not every military action is one that we should not have entered into. host: we have an e-mail from a viewer that once your opinion on the debt ceiling debate. are you going to vote for it? guest: clearly it depends on what is in it. the debt ceiling, we cannot keep

borrowing money without end. we will have a debt ceiling and it will be how much the market is willing to loan us. right now 50% of it is coming from foreigners and foreign nations. at some point they will say that we will not loan you any more money. we will get to the point where these foreign gore -- foreign governments say they will not loan any more money. then we will have a real problem. we have got to put in reducing the spending. reducing the debt and deficit by a lot. and quickly. otherwise we will get to that crash. then it will not be a debt ceiling of our children -- of our choosing, it will be of

someone else's choosing. host: are you 1 yes or no for raising it and coming out again in the longer term? guest: probably know. we cannot keep kicking this down the road we are not 10 years away from a debt crisis, we are three years away. if we kicked this down the road, it will make the problem that much more difficult to deal with. host: congressman campbell, thank you for being here. we will go to open the phones for the last 15 minutes. we are ending early today because the house will be coming into session earlier than expected. let's talk about this debt talks. headlines in the paper this morning -- host: that is what house majority leader eric cantor pushed on tuesday.

host: that is the " there from steny hoyer about some sort of temporary deal. missouri, democratic line. you can talk about any public policy issue that you would like to discuss.

caller: i wanted to get in to talk to the rep. i was not able to. but i wanted to say that it was a breath of fresh air to hear the republican willing to make a reasonable deal with the administration. what he is talking about, doling out to reasonable policies in terms of home ownership, thank you to c-span for bringing someone on like that who is willing to work with the president. host: 20% down, no more than 28% of your monthly income can go to your mom or average monthly mortgage, under those rules would you be able to afford a home? guest: -- caller: by m 61 years old. -- i am 61 years old.

what he is suggesting is not radical. it will affect every homeowner. yes, i think that they are on the right track. host: for lauderdale, bill, independent line. -- fort lauderdale, bill, independent line. about the credit default swaps, one of the callers' questions, -- caller: about the credit default swaps, one of the callers' questions about the swap market. that is why the lenders were having problems in foreclosure. they could not produce the note that said that the mortgage debt had been satisfied. that would definitely change the

geography of the housing crisis, when they cannot produce a note on a free and clear title that is given to the homeowners because the mortgage has been satisfied. host: ok. charlie, republican, new york. caller: talking about the straw poll, the republican leadership conference? caller: what did you think of it? -- host: what did you think of it? caller: during the 2008 campaign, ron paul in one state did he get more than 2% of the primary vote. the reason for that is that every ron paul supporter the call this program during the campaign had two thinkings -- two things in common. they were anti-satellite and

9/11 supporters. john huntsman believes in man- made global warming, he is for gay marriage, and he called barack obama a great worldbeater. do you think that a conservative will vote for him over michele bachman? conservatives knew that if she won that straw poll, she would be an even bigger target for the misogynist the media. they were simply protecting her. host: the cbo will come out at 10:00 this morning with its latest numbers for the economy. then the federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, will speak at 2:00 this afternoon. fdic chairman sheila bear as testifying today.

one of her final today, live coverage on c-span freak. she will be talking about the fdic and the dog frank -- dodd- frank bill. woody, democratic line. caller: when they pass the debt ceiling, they knew that it would have to be raised. in the housing industry for 33 years, government lending, we sold our best loans for 50 cents on the dollar back in 1986. when lehman brothers sold their loans, they were 22 cents on the dollar. the number to mortgage behind countrywide at the time sold their loans for 35% on the dollar. let the people buy back their loans for 10 cents more. they can get their debt

adjusted, moving forward, they start to stimulate the economy with more money in their pocket. host: democratic line, north dakota. "collecting more than $2 trillion from the federal budget falls short of stabilize the borrowing. host: in case you missed it, the senate voted yesterday of 100-0 to confirm leon panetta as the nation's next defense secretary. harold, republican line. caller: what i wanted to tell tim, i am sorry to say that you

are wrong in almost everything that you say. just as barney frank and chris dodd were wrong in forcing fannie mae and freddie mac on our country. the supreme court was low -- was wrong in their new legislation. if those 54 million people had not been killed, the social security and medicare would be solvent. we have done our own terrible things and incumbents are the ones that create these problems. the obvious thing to do is a vote of the incumbents and get new people that understand we cannot violate the 10 commandments continuously. we cannot say in god we trust on our currency and then not trust

god and listen to his sacred words in the bible. obviously we should love each other. the basic amendment is to love your neighbor as yourself. host: ok, harold, we got it. this is gabrielle giffords's has been -- husband. run, independent color, you are on the air. caller: a couple of the things that were talked about today. regarding the war, i feel that the people of this country still do not get what this war with al qaeda is all about. i believe that when a osama bin laden started this war he had

one purpose in mind, bankrupt america. we have to be over $1 trillion on each of these wars. let's say that al qaeda spent $50 billion, ok? probably an outrageous sum. if you could spend $50 billion and get back $1 trillion, that is a deal. if we do not wake up and realize what this war is really about, they are going to bankrupt us. perhaps we have done that already. host: two headlines from "the wall street journal."

host: we talked about them on this program last week. let's go to our c-span video archives and it is in the upper right-hand corner. type in the issue, you can watch the 101 on what that is. "the washington journal" is reporting this morning on jobs.

host: alabama, bruce, democratic caller, go ahead. bruce? good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: what is your comment? caller: my comment is -- we always -- my comment is that we always talk about middle class in america, you know? what about the middle class? we are going to talk about because poor class. you know? we can help hard-working people, poor citizens in the united

states that lost their homes the foreclosure as well. you know? i think that this is a big, major problem in the united states. also, you know, as a country we have to get a grip. the rollback to look at the citizens of america. you know? we get paid for one particular citizen, properly? host: the budget situation in california, there is this headline -- "no budget, no pay."

host: springfield, ill., ken, independent. caller: it is ludicrous to think that someone should have to be about 7% of the value of their house simply to arrive at a new owner. my solution is to turn them into a property bank recovery for the properties that they were acquired through foreclosure and place them in an organization that allows them to get into the occupancy of the house that is much more like a tenant, paying a price for that rental equal or similar to what it would be if they had a 30 year mortgage. a system that is set up to replace fannie and freddie so that the objective of getting people into houses and workable costs can be met instead of

being disagreeable, as it is four years. host: maple, florida, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is about my house right now. losing my house. the problem that i cannot understand is why the government gave the stimulus money to the bank and nothing happened? [unintelligible] in this situation, losing their house on a short sale. none of them ever help anyone. we wondered why the government

never went after those people. the stimulus money showed people that we could help you. i have lost $750 getting the telephone number from the television, they take my money and do not help me. host: we will have to leave it there. we are running out of time. the house is coming into session and i want to show the viewers two more headlines. the latest polls show depth -- host: also, here is a new poll that blomberg is reporting this morning. obama is a certain for

reelection in an economy poll. only 30% certainty for reelection. and we are waiting for the house to come in. they will, in momentarily to begin their morning business. thank you for watching open quote washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time with your phone calls. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each. in no event shall debate go beyond 11:20 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes.

mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. this week three middle schools located in pennsylvania's fifth congressional district, park forest and titus middle school have been named three of the top performing middle grade schools in the country by the national forum to accelerate middle grade reforms. i rise today to congratulate these schools for this north worthy achievement. the national forum to accelerate middle grades reform is an alliance of more than 70 educators, researchers and officers of the national associations and foundations dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the country. every year the forum through their schools to watch program identifies schools across the united states for their high performance. the forum's numbers believe that three things are true of

high-performing middle grade scoofments they are academically excellent, developmentally responsive. schools that are sensitive to the unique developmental challenges of early adolescents and socially equitable. schools that are democratic and fair and provide every student with high-quality teachers, resources and support. later this week these schools will be recognized with 97 other high-performing schools across the nation during the forum's annual conference. i'm proud to represent these incredible teachers, administrators and students. these outstanding efforts deserve recognition and i want to congratulate you all for this awesome achievement. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: i rise today to announce the introdux of legislation that will finally provide protection to immigrant workers from exploitation.

the protect our workers from exploitation and retaliation act, the power act. too often unscrupulous employers threaten or retaliate against workers who complain about illegal working conditions. today, employers can use workers' immigration status and threaten them so they will fear reporting them to the authorities. the abuse of these vulnerable workers undermines working conditions and wages for all u.s. workers. the power act protects these workers. under current law the temporary status for immigrants who are victims of crime, including domestic violence and rape. the power act ensures that this visa protection is also provided to these workers who risk everything by reporting to authorities the employers who break the law by committing serious labor violations. today, such workers are silent out of fear, but silence can mean the difference between

life and death. take the case of a farmer who came to mexico seeking a better life. one day during the hot summer months he picked grapes for 10 hours straight in 105-degree temperatures. then, he fell over unconscious and ill. instead of calling an ambulance, the vineyards told his son to drive him home. on his way home, the father started foaming at the mouth and died of heat stroke. a son had to witness his father die, a preventable death at the age of 53. after hearing about this tragedy, i had to act. for 15 years the farm work advocates had told cal osha to help those working in the heat but they were always ignored. so i carried a bill in the california legislature that required that farm workers and all outdoor workers had basic

protections from the heat, water, shade and rest periods. it was the first law of its kind in the nation. a decade after that law i am in congress, and while some farms obey the heat protections, others are flagrantly violating it. the power act will stop these violations. it would have let someone go to the authorities without fear of retaliation. it would have let him continue to work while he cooperative with cal osha to take them to court and would make sure that they treated all workers fairly from then on. and i hope that because of the power act a son will never have to watch a father die in this way again. the power act will bring abused workers out of the shadows. it will give employees the courage to stand up to the world's biggest and strongest companies.

the power act will fundamentally change the very structure of workers' rights in this country. it supports every honest, hardworking employee across the country, protecting them. it's time that exploited workers were able to come out of the shadows, leave cruel conditions and find jobs where they are treated with the dignity and respect that every employee in america deserves. it's time for the power act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, in august of 2008, russia and the republic of georgia engaged in what one called a little war that shook the world. and, mr. speaker, it did shake the world. for all of post-soviet russia's anti-democratic crackdowns, its aggressive and bell coast actions toward former soviet

state, it was still a shock to see russian tanks roll across the border of a sovereign democratic country. the military conflict lasted five days and a shaken world moved on soon forgetting the shock and outrage of what happened. for the people of the republic of georgia this conflict goes on nearly three years later. they live with the tragic consequences that follow any armed conflict, including thousands of displaced persons and significant economic hartships. beyond the human cost, they faced the long-term strategic challenge of an occupying force in the regions where russia continues to violate the terms of the cease-fire to which it agreed. as occupiers, they violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent democratic state, one that's chosen a path toward integration with institutions

and one that's chosen integration of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. russia's recalcitrants has left the area with a bitter stalemate. within the context of the stalemate, the temperature has seemed to cool with bitter hardship and frustrations supplanting heated conflict. that cooling is perhaps a very dangerous illusion. while the fear of overt military action may be waning, more subversive but more potentially deadly action is taking place. since 2009, the republic of georgia has experienced 12 acts or attempted acts of terrorism within its borders which the georgians believe are linked to russian forces. one such bombing on september 22 of 2010 took place right near the u.s. embassy. two thwarted attacks took place

this month. one i.e.d. was intercepted two days before several colleagues and i arrived there. another was intercepted on june 6 while we were still there. we had the opportunity to discuss with the president at length the nature of these attacks and attempted attacks. he and his administration are increasingly concerned about what they perceive to be a systematic effort to target the georgian people and undermine their progress toward a peaceful, stable, democratic and independent nation. the intended targets of recent bombing attempts seem to suggest an increased focus on civilian casualties which is particularly troubling. as investigations proceed to determine the exact origin and intent of these bombings, it is more important than ever that we stand with our georgian friends, that we stand with their right to sovereignty and

territorial integrity, that we stand with their efforts to build a stronger democracy. in fact, the purpose of my recent trip there was to continue the work of the house democracy partnership which has a long-standing program with the georgian legislature. my co-chairman, david price, and i led a number of delegations there and hosted many georgian leaders in washington in order to provide training and support as they build their legislative institutions. it's important to work with new and re-emerging democracies as they grow and develop, but it's also more essential for us to support those who are under attack for the very reason they have chosen their democratic path. the obama administration has attempted to reset relations with russia for a number of pragmatic and strategic reasons. i believe it's important to do so. it's important to differentiate those relationships. those which are based on shared values and goals. as a major international player

and a permanent member of the united nations security council, we must engage scon instructively with russia, but that does not mean we must turn a blind eye to its tactics or strategic aims towards the soviet -- former soviet sphere. the contrary who must engage with eyes wide open, georgia is not the only state to have emerged from the soviet orbit with democratic intentions only to face deliberate, significant pressures from obstacles from moscow. the nature of our engagement with russia will get more scrutiny than ever as moscow moves towards entry within the world trade organization. bringing them in a rules-based trading system will help us deal with the challenges we face but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the fate of democracy in the post-soviet world is one of them. those who are working diligently against great odds to build democratic institutions must know that the american people stand with

them. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. in their agitation over the debt, our republican friends have focused on program cuts alone. ignoring the harm to american families and the economic recovery. their mindless slashing of the budget is costing jobs while damaging communities. yesterday's news about e.p.a. cuts hurting local efforts at clean air and clean water is another example. more than a quarter of the deficit growth since 2001 resulted from the economic downturn which reduced tax revenues and increased problematic spending. you spend more on unemployment when more people are unplanned parenthood. our focus should be on job creation which reduces unemployment costs and increases tax revenue. however, in their first six months in the majority, the

republicans have not passed any legislation to create jobs. the government budget is often compared to a household budget, but every family knows that expenses are just one side of the equation. how many americans in tough times take on second or even third jobs to increase their income because some expenses just can't be cut? as a nation, we have the ability to increase our revenues, our income. an obvious place to look for additional income is closing tax loopholes and ending unnecessary subsidies. for example, large oil companies would be one of the best places to start. tax incentives are intended to help businesses create vital american jobs or develop technologies to improve our way

of life. we as democrats support those tax incentives that increase domestic manufacturing and other american businesses which create jobs and aid the economic recovery. these tax breaks promote our national economic priorities and put people back to work. but when a company's profits are $10.65 billion in just three months, such as exxonmobil's were earlier this year, who can reasonably argue that that company needs expensive incentives to stay in business and make money? the 10 most egreemingous tax loopholes enjoyed by the large oil companies have helped the five largest companies make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the last decade. the billions we spend every year on subsidies for the largest oil and gas companies are not moving

us any closer to energy independence or a clean energy economy. the subsidies are not necessary, they are not useful for our economy. in 2010, nearly 60% of big oil companies' profits went to stock buybacks and dividends not job creation. with oil produced at $11 a barrel and sold for $100, tax breaks for oil companies are simply wasteful handouts, transferring money from working families to corporate taxpayers. the difference over the -- what was sold for an average barrel of oil, $72 average production price, average production cost, $11. no american family should be giving up their dinner to donate

money to the millionaire next door. removing these tax incentives will save taxpayers $40 billion over the next five years with only minimal impact with the profit not in their operations. cutting subsidies will not raise oil prices which are set in a global market that this year will be in the range of $2 trillion to $3 trillion. subsidies in the tax code instead should be directed towards emerging technologies like wind and solar. that's where the real jobs are. a university of massachusetts study found that incentives for clean energy creates two to four times more direct and indirect jobs compared to investments in oil and gas production. another obvious place to cut is the ethanol tax credit. we don't need to subsidize something that industry is mandated to buy.

we cannot ask the children and seniors to bear the brunt of sacrifice while we are simply giving more money to large corporate interests that don't need it. we must make tough choices to ensure we believe a sound economy to the next generation, but we have to make those choices wisely so we leave a nation that is competitive, prosperous, healthy, and educated. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for five minutes. mr. lance: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate eight outstanding public high schools in new jersey's seventh congressional district. that were recently recognized by news week magazine as among the top 500 public high schools in america for 2011. in all new jersey claimed 36 high schools of "newsweek's" top

500. in the seventh congressional district in new jersey that i have the honor of representing i congratulate the academy for allied health sciences in scotch plains. the union county magnet high school, also in scotch plains. watch young hills regional high school in warren. governor livingston high school in burkely heights. westfield high school in westfield. the academy for information technology, also in scotch plains. cranford high school in cranford. and jonathan dayton high school in springfield. requests newsweek" contacted more than 1,100 high schools across the country and reviewed their graduation and college ma trick cue lation rates, s.a.t., and advanced placement test scores, and other information as well as the school's ability to turn out college ready and life ready students. i congratulate all of the students, teachers,

administrators, and parents and other property taxpayers who helped make new jersey's seventh congressional district the home to so many of the top performing high schools in the nation. when it comes to the best education in the country, new jersey's public school system makes the grade. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. we are some three years into the worst recession since the great depression. i have heard repeated claims that these are times that call for courageous leadership and bold decisions. well, there certainly has been no lack of audacity during recent talks on the budget. i'm joining my colleagues on the budget committee here today to ask on behalf of my constituents in new york's 21st congressional district for less hubris and

more humility from some of our nation's leaders as we attempt to solve a problem that impacts the lives and lively hoods of our families -- livelihoods, of our families, friends, neighbors, and constituents. i have but two requests, first that any budget agreement must not hurt our economy further. in 2008, the financial crisis brought this nation to its knees. it was a crisis of our own making and though we must not dwell on blame, we must learn from this experience to avoid the mistakes of the past. is there no way to encourage business growth, small and large, without wasting $130 billion a year on tax give aways, and without gutting programs that ed educate our work force? i refuse to believe there is no smart solution to this problem. my constituents refuse to believe it. we learned our lesson and we know better. second, any budget agreement must take a balanced approach. it is the height of arrogance to sit down at a negotiating table

to solve a fiscal crisis and declare an $800 billion question off limits. federal government subsidies for some of the most profitable corporations on earth, oil tax breaks that trace their roots to policy decisions made nearly 100 years ago, must be on the table. tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of america must be on the table. tax earmarks for corporate jets for golf bags, these must be on the table. america is watching, america is waiting for us to wake up, eat our wheaties, and flex the powerful muscle of human reason to get our country on a sustainable path. which means cutting spending where it is not needed and where it offers no common good. it means cutting tax kickbacks where they are not needed. it means protecting the present and future of medicare in a form that provides more than a coupon to our seniors and more than an

unsympathetic so be it to proud men and women who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. it means knowing that the big five oil companies can stand on their own two feet. it means playing for the same team, putting everything on the table, and winning this one not for our campaigns but for our constituents. if i might refer to this chart using data from o.m.b. and the ways and means committee, my republican colleagues have shown the so-called courage to ask america's seniors to make yet another great sacrifice for their country. by giving up their hard-earned guaranteed medicare benefits in favor of a voucher. this will lead to thousands of dollars in new out-of-pocket expenses each year. certainly the $165 billion in cuts rivals or is rifled by the $131 billion yearly give aways, that $165 billion a year question from the republican budget that is on the table in

these talks. i do not like it. i will not vote for it. i will fight it every time it comes to this floor for a vote, but it is on the table. it is being discussed and debated, fought for and against in a process that makes our democracy run as it was intended to. again, we will fight any cuts and any end to medicare. but there's another line on this chart and that's this $131 billion per year question of giving tax breaks to wealthy special interests. look, the two of them are comparable. giving oil companies more subsidies versus taking away medicare. this is the question of using taxpayer subsidized support from the federal government to add a few extra billion to the herculean profits of some of the world's wealthiest corporations. the big five oil companies have pocketed almost $1 trillion in pockets in the past 10 years. in the midst of our recession they are doing just fine. they have told us and i quote, we don't need the tax breaks. so why would my colleague from virginia, the republican

majority leader, declare that tax reform like cutting the $20 billion in subsidies that these companies will receive in the next 10 years, is off the table? why are tax write-off earmarks for corporate jets off the table? why are hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires off the table? why are we talking about cutting programs for nursing homes and preschools for local cops and firefighters, for retirement security, and the future of renewable energy, why are we talking about cutting these programs without talking about asking the big five oil companies to stand on their own two feet. i have watched programs that my constituents rely on end up utterly decimated on the floor of this house this year. yet i come before you today not asking for less sacrifice but for more. i'm asking for these at the top to bear their fair share of both the burden and potential triumph of this historic moment. again i must merely ask for a little humility as we attempt to solve a challenge that no one woman or one man among us should attempt to tackle or scuttle

alone. nothing is off the table and nothing is more important than getting every single american who wants to do a hard day's work for a fair wage back on the job site. any budget agreement must take this balanced approach and must not hurt our economy further. thank you, mr. speaker. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. monday i had the honor and the humbling experience of viss thing walter reed hospital. i met three -- visiting walter reed hospital. i met three young men that all three lost both legs above the knees. actually one of them i engaged about afghanistan and he with his wife there with him believes we have done all we can do. certainly he has done more than that. he's given his legs for this country. that leaves me to wanting to read just a paragraph of a

editorial by eugene robertson that was in the north carolina papers. and the title of his column is afghan strategy, let's go. afghan strategy, let's go. and i read the last paragraph of his column, we wanted to depose the taliban regime, and we did. we wanted to install a new government that answers its constituencies at the polls, and we did. we wanted to smash al qaeda's infrastructure, training camps and safe havens, and we did. we wanted to kill or capture osama bin laden, and we did. even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in the nuclear armed pakistan. but does anyone believe the war in afghanistan has made pakistan

more stable? it is not more stable because we are in afghanistan. perhaps it is useful to have a united states military presence in the region. this could be accomplished however with a lot fewer than 100,000 troops and they would not be scattered across the afghan countryside engaged in a dubious, in a dubious attempt at nation building. the threat from afghanistan is gone. bring the troops home. mr. speaker, i don't know what the president will say tonight, and i wish the president well, but mr. gates has been saying all we can and he did testify before the armed services committee in february, and said it would be the latter part of 2014, maybe 2015 before we start bringing a substantial number of our troops home. mr. speaker, i say to the house of representatives, both parties, let's come together and join in the mcgovern-jones bill and let's start bringing our

troops home and say to the president, we don't need to be there until 2014, 2015. as eugene robertson says, we are not going to change anything. history has proven you will never change afghanistan. they don't want to change themselves. quite frankly the taliban are afghan people. it's a civil war. mr. speaker, as i have done before, i have the poster that has a flag draped coffin being carried by the air force at dover air force base. mr. president, you are a very smart man. you can call the shots on this war in afghanistan. say to the american people tonight that we will be home before 2014, 2015. and, mr. speaker, i say in closing, may god bless our men and women in uniform, may god bless the families of our men and women in uniform, may god in his loving arms hold the