it may be a tough question for you, but how can you say to congress? >> you need to address that to the congress. those members that deal with those issues directly are very focused on it and are working with us to address it. it continues to be an important issue. >> can i ask about libya. earlier this week the french acknowledged that they had air dropped some guns and r.p.g.'s to the rebels. the british would be willing to supply body armor to the police in the rebel areas. is the united states considering dropping lethal supplies? we have done humanitarian supplies before. have we considered that kind of legal aid, military aid? . .

>> is the campaign at all involved with the town hall next week? >> this is an official event. >> will he use that official account? i believe he has sent out some messages on his campaign, is that correct? the campaign is not involved in the town hall at all? >> it is an official event.

>> [inaudible] about doublere room. -- i'm not sure about the blue room. i'm not sure which room this was in. all presidents have meeting with supporters. everyone of this presents a predecessor. this was a reception for dnc members in town for the dnc yearly meeting which kicked off the day before that event. >> distinguish between residents meeting the third floor -- the blue room, the red room -- >> the residents is that building over there. >> meeting with them in the east room -- >> i'm not sure the nature of the question. it could be a distinction without a difference.

>> the east room would be suitable for a private -- >> i have ample evidence here of a variety of presidents, a great number of them you have covered where events were held in other rooms, including the east room, including a christmas party says that republican national committee and democratic national committee have for supporters where folks wonder in and out of the variety of rooms carry >> has the president issued instructions to the staff here as you are moving into the campaign as to how to keep a fire wall between official white house activities and campaign activities? >> we are instructed, as previous administrations are, to maintain that distinction that we follow all the rules accordingly. >> this follows up a little bit on what she was talking about.

the office of political affairs, is it true it has been disbanded and can you tell us what the thinking was behind closing that office? >> that position was not filled when it became open again. i would have to get you -- i would have to get to you on the rationale but, there is no office on political affairs. >> that was seven jobs. >> in terms of the director, when he left, you would have to look to when he left. >> when the president was criticizing the work ethic of congress, was he directing at at republicans? it was a tad confusing because one branch of the government -- >> i think he spoke pretty clearly that it was about congress. congress needs to do its job. lawmakers on both parties need to come together need to do the

hard work and do what is required to solve this problem and chief significant deficit reduction. >> [inaudible] when did this administration made the decision to go unenforceable a push against congress the way he did yesterday on the economy? >> i don't think we shifted strategy. i think the president, in answers to questions from you, expressed -- just to make a digression here, you might have a number of others might have, if those of you can't to one question -- i think that would be helpful for all bus.

-- that would be helpful for all of us. but what -- the president can answer that many questions and hour and he can answer -- he can ask -- he can answer questions from eight people or 15 people, depending on how they -- he answered more than that yesterday. going to your other question -- this is the president expressing his great sense of urgency and his feeling that now is the time to act. he expressed that very clearly. this was not a change in strategy, this was an reacting to questions forthrightly and honestly about how he views what is happening here and how he thinks the american people view what is happening in washington.

>> average americans have been tweeting about it and facebooking about it. the president has been known to take the high road and stay above the fray and he came out very strong in compared congress and their procrastination to his daughters and how they do their syllabus a day ahead of homework. >> i think the president was speaking in very plain terms about a situation that everybody can understand, even those who don't have the time to dive into the details of what's happening in negotiations here about deficit reduction and dealing with our debt, overwhelmingly the american people view what is happening here in the way the

president expressed yesterday, which is they do not expect us to agree on everything. but they do expect us to reach agreement on important things, to compromise, to come together, to roll up our sleeves and do the work we were sent here to do. that is what the president was saying yesterday, that it's time to continue the progress we've made. that an opportunity exists here that does not present itself very often and we should seize it. >> [inaudible] usually presidents and their staff put out a memo about how to not run afoul -- >> we get briefings all the time about this. >> i've been trying to get information about all the avenues that this white house and the administration trying to

pursue to make sure the president and all of his staff stay out of trouble. but i cannot get any information. maybe we can get some more? >> on not sure what you're asking for. >> the memo from the counsel's office. >> yet that memos from previous administrations? let me take afterward. >> i feel compelled to asked -- >> in my day, the times he was up here. >> what was your reaction to ms nbc issuing an apology and what was your reaction to the ruling on health care. >> on the first question, the comment that was made was inappropriate. it would be inappropriate to say

that any president of either party. on behalf of the white house, i expressed that sentiment to executives at the network. i have no comment on what direction that network or any network might take because that is not for us to decide. we expressed our concern about the inappropriateness of the comment. >> [inaudible] >> cannot sure that's true. we mix it up. -- i am not sure that is true. the other question about health care -- i did not -- this is a sixth circuit decision you're talking about.

this is a significant ruling by a panel made up of a significant mix of judges and i would know there have been a number of rulings upholding the constitutional -- the constitutionality of the affordable care act. more than have not upheld. you would think that sometimes from reading newspapers or watching television that only the ones that have gone against us are happening. the one yesterday was a very significant. i would just note that there have been a number of those rulings and we remain confident that as it works is way through the judicial system, it is fully constitutional and that's why we continue to implement it and think revisions are beneficial to the american people.

>> [inaudible] >> we have seen an effort to move comprehensive immigration reform. we have seen a need to build pressure, to place on congress, to again embrace bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. which it has in the past. there is a precedent here and this can get done, but we have taken an approach where we believe it's important to do the things the president have done, which is to reach out and

increase the visibility of this issue and encourage people to speak with their members of congress, other senators, encourage them to address this because we need to do it. we need comprehensive immigration reform that takes into account the lira nation of laws and we are also a nation of immigrants. -- take into account that we are a nation of laws and also a nation of immigrants. i cannot predict what congress will or won't do, but we will continue to push it. >> [inaudible] the senate is going to be in session next week. what is the difference between success and failure and what legislative vehicle as he looking for? what is going to be the better outcome?

>> congress needs to be here to take action. what we will do is continue to negotiate, continue to meet and have conversations with the relevant lawmakers -- there are all relevant, but the leaders specifically in gauged in this endeavor. to move this process for nc if we can do what we think is possible, which is significant deficit reduction. vice-president biden made process was there were done in a way 80 their address issues seriously and be, that -- and be confident. these are difficult issues.

we disagree on these issues for a reason. our sentiments are keenly felt on both sides, but we to get outside our comfort zone, accept a little discomfort, he is if you will from our bases in each party in order to do what's right for the american people. >> is it punitive or is there an actual vehicle that's going to come out of this? >> i think the senate decided on its alone. -- the senate decided this on its own. we will -- we looked forward to continuing the conversation and hopefully getting something done. thank you. >> senator chuck grassley from iowa was one of the republican members of the senate finance committee who did not attend a

markup of three trade bill today. the markup was postponed because gop members did not attend. host: senator chuck grassley, republican from iowa and member of the finance committee joins us to talk about the stalled out debt talks. yesterday morning in politico there was an article with the headline -- gop strategy on debt talks not on the level, said the president on wednesday. he lashed out at leaders for stalling over negotiations over a long term deficit reduction and avoiding hard but obvious choices about raising revenues. your response was montego i find the president easy to get along with when there is a lot -- your response. guest: i find the president easy to get along with when there is a lot of pageantry, but when it comes to the hard work i don't see him sitting down with people to really get the work done. he is flying all over the country and making speeches all over and starting his campaign already. if he put as much time in

helping get a bipartisan agreement on debt reduction and on everything else connected with the economy, i think the time would be better spent. so, i accept what he wants to do, but it would be better if he had been at the table maybe two months ago instead of having biden. host: yesterday he talked about tax deductions for welcome it -- he talked about that tax deductions for wealthy americans have to be on the table. >> i want to be clear about what we are proposing. i spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary americans. and i want to extend those middle-class tax cuts. the tax-cut i am proposing we get rid of our tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers in the corporate jet owners -- and

corporate jet owners. guest: first of all, i would suggest he ought to read professor -- of ohio who studied raising taxes and what it does to the budget. he studied it sense of what war ii. he s did -- he he since -- he studied it since world war ii. he says when congress is raise $1 it is an incentive to spend $1.15. it is making the deficit worse instead of better. we have an overspending problem in washington. we don't have a problem that anybody is under taxed, and i say that with great sincerity because for 50 years the average tax coming into the federal government was 18.2% of gross national product. and spending during that period of time was about 19% or 20%.

now you have spending up to 25%. it is that difference, or the desire to have government consumes so much more, that is the problem today. for instance, over the last two years we increased expenditures 22%. that is on top of the $814 billion deficit that didn't keep unemployment under 8% like the president said it would. you just can't increase expenditures 22% when you only have 2% growth in the economy. it is the spending side of the ledger that is the problem. i will not argue with the president that certain loopholes ought to be closed. but if you look at corporate loopholes, it ought to be done in the context of reform of corporate taxation. because you had a previous caller, as i listened, who said we are the second highest -- we might be the highest corporate tax in the entire world.

we ought to reduce the corporate tax. we ought to close loopholes. but it ought to be done in the context of corporate tax reform because of the globalization of the economy. also the same thing on income tax. we've got an atrocious tax code. those of us on the finance committee have even made it somewhat worse and more complicated. we ought to throw it out and start over again and do tax policy as a tax policy, but not do what the president said -- do some taxes now so we can spend more because the problem is not under taxation, the problem is overspending. host: we are talking to senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa and member of the finance committee. the numbers are on your screen --

you can also send us messages viamorehead city, north carolin georgia on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, georgia. caller: i am on the line. good morning. i would like to say that the mess we are in right now is being blamed on the president obama when we had all those years of president bush and clinton messing up the budget and president obama is getting blamed for it. he gets blamed for everything. what i want to say is i thoroughly agree with taxing the rich people. i thought that for years. i am on social security. if you tax the social security and medicare, i have a feeling nobody needs to run for dog catcher if they run again. host: what is your definition of rich?

caller: millions. host: millionaires. guest: i will agree with the caller but i want to add to something she said. i agree with the caller that president obama inherited a terrible mess from the previous administration. but it doesn't matter if you look at unemployment or the budget deficit or the price of gasoline -- all of these things have gotten tremendously worst under president obama. so, no doubt, she is right, it wasn't good when he took office. but there isn't a statistic that you might point out that president bush where he was on things that it is worse now. very much worse. host: our next call comes from tennessee on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. senator grassley, i appreciate you. i watch you all the time and you have good common sense. what i believe in life is simple

-- we will not get ourselves out of this thing until everybody pays their fair share. 40% of american people don't pay a dime in taxes. i propose a 3% sales tax for 10 years. along with that from a stipulation that for every $1 we collect, $4 in budget cuts. so we cut the things as well. that is what i would think would help us. but you cannot have just 60% of the american people paying all the bills. you have to bring some revenues in, and at the same time you have to cut spending. i was a businessman and my business went under. i went from 130,000 a year down to 30,000. i had to do things i did not want to do and i titan's my belt. -- tightened my belt. guest: a sensible approach -- raising taxes would go to the bottom line. but i referred to the professor

it again -- and dollars worth of taxes is a license to spend $1.17. we have had taxes coming in 50 years, 8.2% of gross national product. that is a level of taxation you don't have to revolt against. history proves that as a fair amount for the pro-government to take a leave the 82% for you to spend. -- that is a fair amount for the government to take, and leave the the 82% for you to spend. we have to bring the level of expenditure back to where it was for the historical average. that is why i keep saying congress is overspending. you can't have of the 22% increase. one of the things i would do to help solve the situation, i would preempt the 22% increase, go back to the 2008 levels of

expenditure and i would freeze it for five years. that is just on discretionary -- only 15% of the budget. if you really want to solve the deficit problem you've got to look at entitlements, 45% of the budget. we've got to save social security, we've got to save medicare. the trustees give an annual report. and down the road we know these programs are going to go under if we don't do something. i can say medicare will go under -- social security will not really go under but instead of paying 100% of benefits, by 2036 we will pay 75% because that is the cash flow. you cannot pay more than going out after use the assets. we use of the assets, the interest. i don't want someone who is drawing social security say to me today, just leave social security alone and it will take

care of itself. it will not take care of itself at 100% of benefits. if you are satisfied with 75%, you can leave it alone. but i have a responsibility to make sure my grandchildren have the same social security that i had and they have the same medicare i would have if i were in retirement. host: robert from tennessee on our line for independents. caller: senator grassley, i really respect you. i have watched you for years. i think you are a very intelligent guy. and i will tell you something a little shocking -- the guy coming on after you, bernie sanders, i also agree with him. it couple of things you can do is means testing for social security. i am disabled and drawing disability benefits to. i understand this a little did more than the average bear.

a person that is drawing, or has a net worth of $5 million, as an example, or more, that draws a social security if check if -- that should be eliminated. warren buffett made that 0.18 months ago and everybody said it was a bad idea donald trump mentioned something that i thought was interesting when he was playing around with running for president. he said why are we spending billions and billions of dollars for bases in south korea, japan, and the philippines, and around the world, in cases that do not need to be opened? if you want to pull those people out of there, to discharge them from the army, if they want to be out, otherwise they could be doing work other than what they are doing there, and you and i both know it costs billions and

billions of dollars to keep each one of these bases open. in addition to that, when she starred that line of thinking, -- once you start that line of thinking, they are making products, they can pay for protection. host: we will leave it there. guest: i would agree that we have to many bases overseas. where we have treaty obligations, we are going to have to maintain those treaty obligations, like with nato or south korea, or else you have to go to the process of getting out of trees. to what extent do you lose your credibility? there is one thing bernie sanders and i agree on and work together on is that the federal reserve should be audited. the federal reserve as part of our government.

it should not have -- it ought to have more transparency, and with transparency comes accountability. i would say one last thing about means testing. we probably will have to means test social security more. i want to emphasize the word "more." maybe the caller does not recognize that social security is means tested it indirectly now through higher-income people putting in a percentage of social security to be taxed a second time. the other way it is being tested is if you are higher income, you probably get about 22% of what your last paycheck was, as opposed to lower income people getting about 44.5% of their last pay check before they retired. so, in to do well begin to be

will ways it is means tested -- so, in two ways it is means tested. host: we have this from twitter. guest: we have a lot of policy in that area already. i agree with that. we have kind of adopted the policy throughout 200 years of our history that one way or another, people that are destitute, people that cannot help themselves, people then need a little push to get along, to hopefully with them into self-sufficiency -- there has always been some sort of government programs to do that, whether it was during the revolutionary war and the houses of poverty, or whether it is now, with welfare. why why i resent, and getting back -- what i resent, and getting back into what the

president is talking about, attacks in higher income people, you could have a situation -- let's take the state tax. i'm an advocate for doing away with the estate tax. two people have made $1 million each. somebody is very conservative. this other person drank it up, and gambled away, everything else, they make the same amount of money, but somehow this person does not have anything to lead to his kids. this one does. you have that treatment that is not equal. there is no way the tax code can recognize what the common sense e-mail indicates. i guess we have to live with it. host: in "in new york times" earlier this week they had an editorial that said serious

negotiations require a serious negotiator. they write that -- host: your thoughts, sir? guest: i will get back to some things i already said. if there is nothing wrong with the article and the suggestion of where you can get more money,

but you ought to consider tax policy as tax policy. those corporate and oil company subsidies, tax policies, ought to be considered one of two ways. either when you are revising corporate tax policy, or, in the case of oil companies, i would say it is better to do it when you have energy policy. if we have four things we have to do for energy independence. drill here, drove the ball, and encourage production of oil -- drill here, drill now, and encourage the production of oil. all of those have subsidies. we ought to consider those subsidies within energy policy is so you have a level playing field with all of the things you want to accomplish to be more independent. that is another thing we could do to create jobs in this country, instead of spending

$835 billion -- i said that wrong, $835 million every day to import oil, there is no reason we should not be drilling here, and drilling now, using all of our sources of oil cost of alternative energy, and we need a level playing field for all those different sources. if there are subsidies, they ought to be somewhat equal. host: we're talking about the stock of debt talks with senator chuck grassley, a republican from iowa. our next call comes from misery. nancy, on our line for republicans. caller: senator grassley, i think we should go back to the balanced budget era we had during the reagan era. i believe social security needs to be revised, and i am a baby boomer -- i would like to see social security revised so that it is there for everyone in the

future. also, my brother is a small businessman, and he is not able to get loans because of all the requirements that the banks have to loan money. i would like to see that change also. thank you. guest: i think i can answer all of her questions except small business. there, you have a situation where banks as well as small business, they didn't know what the future holds. -- they do not know what the future holds. if there is this health care reform bill but has to be implemented. there is a question of taxes going higher at the end of 2012. there is all of this regulation writing that is going on in the said administration. all of this leads to uncertainty. -- in this administration. all of this leads to uncertainty. asked if we had more certainty, stopped writing regulations,

telling people we are not going to increase taxes at the end of 2012, that we will drill here, drill now, and have cheaper energy -- all of those things would lose some of the banks and the corporations that have trillion in reserve that could hire people, but they do not want to hire people because they do not know what government will jim them with in their rear end tomorrow. people are being cautious. i think we would have small- business lending by banks and small business and corporations would spend. social security, i've already talked about, so the last thing would be the balanced budget amendment, and nancy is right. about 20 years ago, it was up

for a vote, and came up one vote short term and the one republican that did not vote for it made a difference, otherwise we would have a balanced budget amendment to the constitution right now. it will come up on july 18 for a week-long debate, and all 47 republicans are signed up. we have a lease 20 democrats that vote for it, and if we do, it will be on its road to having the same requirements as the states have. it would be good discipline. it is not a point to help with the immediate problems -- that has to be cut, cut, cut right now, but when we get out of this whole, the balanced budget amendment requirement would help the state more fiscally sound. host: our next call comes from baltimore, maryland on our line

for democrats. robert, you are on "washington journal." caller: it is roberta, and i am glad to be on. three questions. to all of the big farms owned by japan -- -- do all of the big farms owned by japan and china -- are they going to get the farm taxes? another thing -- why could we not do as your president reagan did and start the program to get -- to teach kids and other people how to work, what to do when they go to work? during that progress on our roads got a lot better. did you know, sir, that general electric paid no taxes? all of these companies that your

outstanding for paid no taxes. they have 40 lawyers making sure of of the taxes -- making sure about the taxes. if they have done nothing lot of people with the big money pitch in, too. guest: i did not understand the farm texas. did you know what she was talking about? host: i think so. let me talk about an editorial in "the usa today." they have 10 terrible tax breaks. they write ethanol, the fuel made from corn, does not come close to compete with traditional gasoline on price.

host: add to that -- a question from oswego, new york. guest: in regard to the ethanol, -- two reasons, i think forces fought -- for farm subsidy programs, and i am an advocate that we should not be paying big farmers to get bigger. i have always been a sponsor of what you call a hard cap. i think it is silly for some farmers to get millions of dollars. 10% of the biggest farmers get 70% of the farm program. i want to be intellectually honest with you. i am a farmer.

i get some benefit from the farm program. 10% of the biggest farmers get 70% of the benefits. the farm program needs to be targeted. small or medium-sized farmers, -- targeted to small or medium- sized farmers, so we need a cap, and it is difficult to get support for that in the south. i have not been successful, but i will try again. the old saying that we are only nine meals away from a revolution -- social cohesion, social stability -- you do not want food riots but they have in some countries. protecting the family farmer, and i am not talking about the mega-farmer, he wants to make sure that when you have a natural disaster -- you want to make sure when you have natural disasters -- look at the politics that defects farm

prices. when carter puts a grain embargo on, or ford, prices go down or, let's say a natural disaster -- you can not use the mississippi river to get your dream out for exports, and the price drops 25 cents in one day. that is not the farmer's fault. so, the safety net is to protect the farmer against things that are beyond his control because he does not control the weather, washington, international politics, or whether there is war. to have something happen in israel this morning to a defect farm prices? the other reason is for national security. the germans and japanese protect farmers because they found dog when you start during world war two you cannot efficiently --

found out when you started during world war two, you can not have national security. that is another one. 3% of the coarse grain worldwide goes into biofuels. so anybody that says we are taking food out of the mobs of people because we make ethanol out of it, -- 10% of all of the fuel burned in cars as from ethanol, and that is equal to what we import from venezuela, or saudi arabia. did people think we should ought to do away with 10% that comes from renewable fuels, domestically-produced fuel costs, and rely on people that hate us, or send more money to saudi arabia saw the train terrorists to tell us? i did not think that is good national policy.

we ought to be praising people that want to domestically produced energy. if you wonder whether or not we should have held for ethanol, which will end right now, a feat end of this year, you have -- and which will end at the end of this year, you have to ask should get more oil. i think we want domestically- produced, renewable fuel. we would not have a biofuel industry if there had not been held from the government. now, it ought to be done away with. host: we have tom online from baltimore, maryland, on our line for republicans. caller: 5 been a strong supporter of the republican party for over 30 years. i want to know why the republicans -- i'm a strong supporter -- but it seems to me

they had changed their menu. they do not want to compromise, and they're fighting this oil tax. it does not make sense to me when you have oil companies making these billions of dollars, and they will try to take it out on the poor person. they got their medicare and medicaid your john boehner say this is what the people want. it is not what the people want. it is with the big businesses want. i am a strong supporter of the republican party, but i'm seriously thinking of switching over to the democrats. in guest: if you're going to change tax policy for corporations, do it in the context of revising the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, so we could be more competitive with our international competition. do not until in the context of raising more money so that

covers -- do not do it in the context of raising more money so that congress spends more. he talked about medicare. republicans want to save medicare. it is part of the social fabric of america. it is not just a government program. he is a government program, but you have to remember, when people retire from john deere in prior -- iowa, they get health care paid for by the corporation. after they become 65, medicare is dovetailed in with their corporate health retirement plan, and their john deere plan becomes a supplement to medicare. it is not only to save it because it is department program, it is part of the social fabric of america. republicans want to save it. the fact is, if we do nothing like a lot of people are saying, just do not touch medicare, we

know by 2021 based upon what the trustees say, not what i say, there will not be in medicare program. the trust fund will be broke. it is like saying, 21, we're not willing to have any. you have to do something. host: your thoughts on the medicare proposal put forward by your colleagues, senator lieberman, and senator colbern. guest: news people like you ask me about this earlier this week, and i welcome any ideas on the table, but i want to see it in the context of an environment that could get it passed. i worked on social security reform in 2005. president bush ran on it. i worked to try and put together a plan. unless you bring democrats to the table, nothing gets done,

and they sat it out terrorists the same way, you have a republican or eight -- said it out. the same way you have a republican or democrat present their plan, i am proud of them for doing it, but if you do not get the president to the table, what good does it do? you want a product. when you are working on something dead as part of the social fabric of america, it ought to be done in a bipartisan way, just like social security, medicare, and civil rights legislation a lot of other social programs or pest with broad, bipartisan support. the only social program passed on a partisan basis is the health-care reform bill of president obama, and look at what that is done -- has done? it said had been worked through in a bipartisan way, -- if it had been worked through in a bipartisan way, you would not

have that conversation. host: minneapolis, minn., steve, on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking your time and sharing your thoughts with c-span viewers. you are so right in pointing out that if congress does not do anything, does not take one to vote, we will have a massive tax increase starting in 18 months and that is because the bush tax regime goes away, and we returned to the clinton tax regime. the last time i looked, president clinton was a democrat. what is really going on now is the democrats are rejecting president clinton's form of tax because our current law is scheduled for a massive tax increase.

the real message the democrats are giving is that while there is a tax increase coming, we do not like what that tax increases. we reject what president clinton's tax regime was, and we essentially, simply want to tax the rich. that was 0.1. i am a tax lawyer, and i have come up with a 12-point plan for reforming the internal revenue code for individual tax, corporate tax, and the state tax. it is the nickel, dime, quarter tax. you can reduce rates to 5%, 10%, and 25%, and getting rid of the reductions like the commission

did in december. it returns revenue streams back onto the tax roll, eliminates the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, and we will have no more amt tax, while attending deferral of foreign earnings in exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%. host: steve, in minneapolis, giving a sellout to work with. senator grassley? guest: i have spoken to my willingness to do separate territorial system of taxation because our corporate tax system in this country is the only one in the world -- everybody else texas corporate income where it is earned -- taxes corporate income where it is earned. we would be more competitive with a system like the rest of the world. on the income tax, it sounds to

me that he is going back to similar to what we have in the 1986 tax bill, and i think that broadening of the tax base, reducing marginal tax rates, will be better for the economy because we have complicated tax code. every policy is a political decision that money ought to be invested here, spent here, or help people in need there. so, it is a political decision. the more money, the less restriction we have in washington on how you spend your money, and how much tax you pay, and the marketplace make the decision as opposed to politicians, it will cause the economy to grow much faster. that is what we have to do. we have not talked about it at this meeting, we've talked about raising taxes or not raising taxes. the only way we are going to

get out of the situation we are in with more revenue is to grow the economy. by the way, the present tax policy that we have right now that this gentleman said will end december 31, 2012, and then we'll get the biggest tax increase in the history of the country, the congressional budget office says we will get above this 18.2% 50-year average, and go up to 19% at the end of 10 years without increasing taxes. the president is saying we need to increase taxes. the present tax law is going to bring in more revenue. host: he also mentioned the amt. "roll call" had this on wednesday.

guest: well, if it is revenue- neutral, and does not raise taxes, that is one thing. there are some people in this town that are not in congress that say you can not change any tax law even if it does not bring in revenue. we have a hundred 37 million taxpayers. i do not know how you pass a law and know how it will affect 137 million taxpayers. host: our next call comes from connecticut on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have one comment, and a couple of questions. i hope you can answer them as honestly as possible. my comment is are you as disgusted with the human race

being so -- everybody wants to take, take, instead of giving. do you not think we need to pay these bills that we graciously took from these people? if we were able to take the money and spend it on whatever is we needed to spend it on, we should pay it back. we need to pay that money back because we used it. my next question is why are the republicans so hell-bent on making obama failed >> did not realize that if he fails, we felt? -- failed? do you not realize that if he fails, we fail? guest: there is a difference of policy. i would say you can have honest differences of this agreement on

policy, and still not want obama to fail, or the country to fail. yes, we have to pay back our debt, and leslie, about whether we are selfish or not, americans give more to non-profit organizations and charities that any other country in the world, so i think it is something we can be proud of, and from the standpoint of charitable giving, we are not selfish people. host: our next call comes from marietta, california, from how word on our line for republicans. -- how word on our line for republicans. hearr: i'm very happy to your reaction to the ethanol conversation, and i do not quite understand all of the details. i do know that it is no longer going to be subsidized, as i

understand it. those corn farmers work like hell, whether they're selling corn on the open market, or to the ethanol people for biofuel. i think, due to the situation in the world economy, the corn prices are going to hold. you have answered a lot of questions. would you quickly touch -- this is not something we have really talked about, but i would like you to talk about the stack of the nlrb, the boeing situation. when i say the stacking of nlrb with people that are pro-union,

maybe you could put a little bit of light on what labor is doing. host: we will leave it there. guest: i think that the nlrb is making a power grab. i think all of their actions are also very scared i think they are trying to do what they cannot get through the congress of the united states. it is stretching all the labor laws way beyond anything congress >> a republican view of the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending. we will hear from an independent next, senator bernie sanders from vermont. this happened before senate leaders decided not to recess for the july 4th holiday next week in order to continue the debt negotiations.

journal" continues. host: senator bernie sanders, independent of vermont, and member of the senate budget committee is here to continue our discussion regarding the stalled gatt talks. welcome to the program. guest: good to be with you. host: the first paragraph from "politico" -- host: is it fair for the president to blame the republicans? guest: significantly, yes. what poll after poll shows is the best majority of american people believe there is a serious debt crisis best to be solved through shared sacrifice.

republicans are saying they're rich are getting better, the middle class is disappearing, poverty is increasing, and but we do not want to ask the wealthiest people in this country, and with the top 1% earning more than the bottom 50%, of not only do we now want to ask the wealthy to contribute some deficit reduction, we want to give them more tax breaks. you have corporations -- one of the five collectively making over one trillion dollars in profits did not pay a nickel in texas. companies like exxon mobil are making billions of dollars and not paying a penny in federal income taxes. what the american people believe, what i believe, is we're going to solve this problem, with the largest corporations and the richest people playing a role. it i grotesquely unfair to

move. a balanced budget on the backs of the elderly, the sec, and the children -- the sixth, and the children. i of the heart of the present. he is been much too soft and the republicans. he is not taken the case and rallied the american people on the concept of shared sacrifice. do i think republicans are protecting the wealthy? i certainly do. host: to republicans on both the house and the senate side, including senator grassley, will say that corporations in the united states already pay the highest digitize corporate tax on the planet. -- pay the highest corporate tax on the planet. guest: that is not true. you have a real tax rate, and a nomil tax rate. nominal tax rate could be anything. you're supposed to pay 99% of your income, but what matters is

what you do pay. i have to disagree. the facts are very clear. when you look to the effective tax rate of what corporations pay, it is about average. furthermore, when you have, and i have a list of the right here, major, major corporations paying not a penny in taxes after making billions of dollars in profits. that is the absolutely scandalous. you have a situation in the cayman islands, which is one of the major places where the wealthy and large corporations stash money in order to avoid taxes, one building has 18,000 corporations. what do you think about that? everybody knows there are not 18,000 companies in that building. these companies are using the address of the building in order to pretend to be cayman island

countries, and we are losing about $100 billion every year in federal revenue. republicans are protecting those special trust. host: yesterday during his news conference, the president addressed democrats saying they must agree to painful spending cuts. this is what he have to say. we will get your response. >> democrats have to except some painful spending cuts that heard some of our constituencies, and we may not like. we have shown a willingness to do that for the greater good -- to say, look, there are good programs tt are nice to have, but we cannot afford them right now. and i, as commander-in-chief, have to have a difficult conversations with the pentagon, saying there is set here, we have to trim it out, and bob gates has done a good job identifying cuts, but we wil do more. i promise you, the preference of the pentagon would be not to cut

any more, because they feel like they have already given. so, we are going to have to look at entitlements. that is always difficult politically. i have been willing to say we need to see where we can reduce the cost of health care spending and medicare and medicaid in the out years, not by shifting costs onto seniors, as some have proposed, but rather by reducing costs. host: senator bernie sanders, what did you think about what the president had to say about spending cuts, and what would you be willing to cut to bring down the dead beyond defse spending? guest:-member of the budget committee. i've been working hard to come up with a budget that says given the fact that we have the most unequal distribution of more wealth and the bottom one- fifth the americans, what i think as we need to have a budget that talks about 50%

revenue, and 50% cuts. in terms of cuts, we have tripled military spending since 1997, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i can tell you that the people in vermont 1 as to bring the troops home a lot faster than president obama has talked about. some of the president put the generals are not happy with cuts in the military, but that is the way life goes. we're spending $100 billion every single year on the war in afghanistan. we have got to start bringing those troops home. my own feeling is i'm going to fight to protect working families and the middle class, who as a result of the recession, are already struggling to rid of real unemployment is probably closer to a 16% when you get --

struggling at real unemployment is not 9%, but closer to 16%. you have hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. you guys are doing phenomenally well. record-breaking corporate. . you will have to pay. say to the military folks sorry, you will have to bring the folks home we no longer need weapons systems designed to fight the old cold war. when you do that, and i'm not saying you do not make other costs, there is a lot of ways to want to go after, but at the end of the day, our middle-class and working-class is really hurting, and i did not want to throw people off of health care or medicaid. >> give an exact -- host: give me an example beyond the department of defense.

guest: i think we can make medicare more efficient. there is a huge amount of fraud we are seeing in medicare, that is been documented in small-time operators ripping off the system, and corporate interests. i think if we are aggressive, we can save substantial money in those areas as well. host: we continue our discussion regarding stalled debt talks with bernie sanders from vermont. our first call comes from wyoming on our line for republicans. caller: yes, sir. i am kind of disturbed because it seems to me like we talk about the american dream, and what do you do? you work all of your life. he tried to make a living, and the government takes it away from you? why do they get to take it away from you. i pays so many taxes it is not

real. they want to raise my taxes when i get to retirement age? they want to take my benefits away? that is wrong. i think people need to stop spending, and take care of their own business. guest: bonnie, i agree with you. if the people worked their whole lives, contributed to social security and medicare, they have a right to keep those programs, and that is what we are fighting for. when you hear some of my reblican colleagues say they want to tax the middle class, bernie set -- bernie sanders wants to tax them working people, data is not true. -- that is not true. we and given tax breaks to the top 2%, and major corporations sometimes pay nothing -- i have

to tell you, if we're going to preserve social esotery, medicare, medicaid, -- social serity, medicare, medicaid, those guys are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes. i have fought very hard, and i think my colleagues are, making sure worki families, in many cases working longer hours for lower rages, we do not increase their taxes. host: ralph, in syracuse, n.y., and our line for democrats. good morning. caller: ank you for c-span. i have a quick comment and question for the center. bernie sanders, i am proud of you. you are about the only senator lost that cares about the little guy and a little gal. i will ask the same question

that was asked to senator grassley on the nlrb and boeing. maya understanding is they have not ruled on the case yet -- my no standing as they haveot ruled on the case yet. did boeing discriminate against union workers? guest: i think we are still in the progress. your comment is right. republicans have jumped all over the nlrb for suggesting bowling may have discriminated against workers in moving eir plant. let there process play out. i'm a strong advocate for union workers to bargain. i'm opposed to those people that want to destroy they nlrb's ability to protect working people. i think the republicans are trying to do just that.

hostour line for independences, from milwaukee. caller: good morning. credit unions have been moving their country's -- companies out of the country. now, we have wisconsin, scott walker, a basically trying to break the unions. what will happen ifhe union's goal completely away -- if the unions go completely away? guest: good question. i believe working people have the right to organize, and the right to engage in collective bargaining. a lot of non--union people - unwinding people think it does not impact me, but it does. if union workers are able to get a decent wage, it always --

raises the wage level. i would suggest to you, and i think the facts are clear that what we're seeing in this country as the collops of the middle class. we are seeing a significant increase in poverty, and a growing craft -- gap between the rich and everybody else. there are a number of factors. working people no longer have the strength to collectively negotiate decent wages, and furthermore, they do not have the strength to prevent large corporations from shutting down in america, and moving to china and other countries. in the last 10 years alone, 50,000 factories in america have shot down. millions of workers have lost good-paying manufacturing jobs, and it is harder and harder in this country to buy products made in this country. he will not have a middle class,

or a strong economy, if we do not manufacture the products to the significant degree that we consume. workers joining unions as onef the greatest issues we have to deal with. host: we continue our discussion on the stalled debt talks with senar bernie sanders. our next call comes from california, on our line for republicans. caller: what about your pals in hollywood? do you tax them? guest: absolutely. caller: i have friends that make to the $50,000, -- to the $50,000, and how much money do you make off of your book, the tax yourself? guest: thank you for the

plug on the book. it's called "the speech." i will tell you i do not make e penny of that -- on that book. all profits will go to charities in the statef vermont. in terms of my friend, lindsay low hand, in all due respect, i have not ever met her. when we talk about asking the wealthiest people in the country to pay their fair share of taxes, that as anybody that is making a lot of money. sometimes you go and talk to very wealthy people, and they say i'm doing phenomenally well, my income has gone up, yet what we should be clear is that in terms of the effective tax rates. warren buffett makes this point. it is a weird when a multi- millionaire and the pain -- ends

up paying a real tax rate that is lower tn a policeman, or a fireman, or a nurse. i to say in a democratic society, when we are struggling to deal with the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty among our kids, seniors going hungry, yes, i do believe the wealthiest people, millionaires and billionaires should be able to pay their fair share. host: american hero writes -- guest: that is the republican line as well. we saw that movie. that was the line for the bush administration. the bush administration said if you're going to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, it is a job killer the rich -- killer. the rich were given huge tax breaks. we saw that movie during the

bush administration, and at the end of those eight years, we lost 600,000 private sector jobs, if the worst economic performance in modern history. if we tried that. we gave tax breaks to the rh and large corporations. the end result was a our manufacturing sector has ended up in china, and median family income going down by $2,500. under the clinton era, and i am not here to say that those years were golden, we raised taxes on the wealthy. what happened during that era? we created 22 million jobs. the contrast between raising taxes and lowering taxes -- people can make their decisions. host: on our line for democrats, and deborah, in cincinnati, ohio.

caller: i want democrats to stop calling the a tax break for the rich, and, an entitlement for the lower income people. would you please refer to it as an entitlement for the rich for the subsidies and all the tax breaks that they get. guest: i am not quite sure i understand what you mean, but what i can say is that the real story here in washington that the media does not write about enough is the incredible power of the big money interests, whether it is wall street, the energy companies, or the military industrial complex. when people criticize us for saying the wealthiest should pare their share, about what happened in this country three years ago. our friends on wall street because of their recklessness,

and he legal behavior, i tnk they should end up in jail. the plunge this country into the worst recession since the 1930's. three years later, after they were bailed out, these guys are making huge profits. ceo's are getting extraordinary compensation packages. i do think after having bailed them out, they should pay their fair share of taxes. i think wall street owes the american people a whole lot. before i vote to cut medicare, medicaid, education, and nutrition, and environmental programs, i will ask them to pay their fair share. host: yesterday in the "roll call" the chairman of your committee, kent conrad put forward this debt solution. they wrote that senator conrad said --

guest: i am on the committee, and i think senator kent conrad has done a very good job, and i trust his jgment. i do not know the answer to that. i know that as a member of the budget committee i have en working very hard with senator coad to come up with a budget that is fair, much stronger than what the president is talking about, and certainly tells republicans that we are not going to move to deficit reduction solely on the back of the week and the vulnerable. we're going to ask the people that have the capability, those they're doing very well to pay their fair share. that is what we will see the budget committee resolution. host: the article goes on to say that all settingamt relief with revenue elsewhere --

guest: kent conrad is a smart guy. host: we will leave it there. ga., on ourrome, line for independents. caller: we should keep all effective tax rates the same, get rid of all loopholes, even for the poor, that way everyone in america pays their fair share. guest: everybody knows r-texas and is enormously -- everyone knows that our tax code is enormously complicated. i believe not that everybody should pay 12% or 15%. i believe in progress in texas. let's be very clear. there are tens of millions of people in this country who as a result of the recession, they

may have lost their homes, their jobs, their life savings. there are so many people in my own state of vermont there really struggling, and that is true all over this country. to say to those folks your tax rate has to be the same to the wealthiest people is not fair to me. i agree with half of what you are saying. i believe in tax simplicity. i believe in doing away with all of those loopholes, but the end of the day, i believe that those people who have a lot of money, and we are seeing a gate -- great concentration of money, i believe they should pay a higher .ate hos host: rosa, you're on with senator bernie sanders. caller: i would like to know why

they quit giving the seniors their social security raises. or, if they will ever get them back. my rent is $600, and i only make light $700 a month. i have hardly anything to live on, and prices in stores keep going off and up. pretty soon i will be lucky if i can buy cat food. guest: was rosa on the republican line? host: she was on the republican line. guest: thank you. i helped lead the effort in the last year, not once, but on two occasions to say just what you said -- to tell millions and millions of seniors and disabled veterans in this countryoday that they're not seeing higher costs for their

health care for their food is as absurd. what i fought for, and the best that i could do was on two occasions try to do at least we did in the stimulus package, and get all seniors and disabled veterans a to a $50 check. that is not a lot -- $250 check. i know that is not a lot of money, but that would help. i do not believe we have any republican votes -- one republican vote. what rosa is saying i want people to think about. that effort to put $250, not a lot of money -- it wod cost approximately $14 billion. that is what we want to do. and yethat republicans are saying is we want to extend the bush tax breaks for $700 billion

that go to the top 2%, but we cannot help rosa out with a $250 check. furthermore, i have to tell you, rosa, and i am the chairman of the defending the social security caucus -- is a huge effort on the part of republicans and some democrats, mostly republicans, to make seniors,s anin its for raise the retirement age, or in some cases, privatize social security, all of which i think is unfair, a disaster, and not needed. social security today, despite a lot of the information out there, has a $2.60 trillion rplus, can pay out every benefit eligible, has not contributed one penny to the deficit, because it is paid for -- the table tax guest payroll tax. pay attention to what is going on in d.c. and stand with us and

at least that seniors in nominal increase in their cola. host: the off-lead in "the washington times" -- guest: you don't need any more urgency. we want to be clear what is at stake here. what is at stake is that according to the secretary of the treasury, and whether he is right or not, i don't know -- in early august, for the first time in the history of our great nation, we may not pay our debts. there are people who say we want more money to spend. no, it is like you went out and bought a car, bought a home -- when you do that, you have got to pay, pay your mortgage, pay your car loan. this is what we're talking about. what happens -- republicans are intransigent, and go to your

newspapers, hava quotation from john boehner -- "we cannot raise taxes." what happens if we default on our debt? nobody knows exactly, because it has never happened. but clearly, in a very fragile world economy, at a time when we are trying with not much success to improve our own economy, this will be a disaster, this will at the very least substantially raise interest rates, which will be very harmful to our economy. bottom line is that we cannot the fall in my view, and the bottom line to me is that republicans cannot be police and say if you don't give us everything -- cannot be bullies and say if you don't give us everything, we will not play. host: "obama demanded they stay in town to help with debt negotiations and found unlikely allies --

would you bwilling to go to your leader and say -- guest: tse are the things word they walked away from budget negotiations, are in today? mr. cantor and mr. kyl got up and walked out. what you're talking about is a lot of flimflam from a conservative newspaper. when the republican leadership says no, we don't want to participate in the bipartisan negotiations, that tells you somethg about where they are coming from. host: democrat, california. diane? let's move on to louiana, dean on the line for independents.

caller: i normally vote republican, but i i'm calling in a panic because i am so disgusted by the way things are running now -- calling inpendent because i'm so disgusted by the way things are running out. he made a good point about the senate staying in session for vacation. i work and we did not take a vacation this year. gas prices, worrying about trying to save for my retirement and my insurance because companies are dropping their insurance and we are coming out of pocket ourselves to pay for insurance. my question is, why cannot the senate, congressman, all the government themselves, if it they were on the same retirement plan and health insurance that i was on, social security that i will be on or may not ben at that time, they would be able to come to more -- a more reasonable ichors solution to the problem, instead of being on their own system where they are passing judgment on to american citizens on as tom they don't

even contribute to or have a party of. guest: dean, just to correct the record, and there is a lot of misunderstanding set out on the internet -- i am on it same social security system you are, blue cross blue shield, so does everybody on my staff. there is not a special program for members of congress brought this issue of a vacation or no vacation -- i am prepared to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. we have a huge crisis. a lot of this is political puffery. when i go back to vermont, you know what i do? i work. i talked to constituents, i hold town meetings. what i'd rather be in vermont next week that here in washington? i would. but i am prepared to stay here if it makes sense. but when republican leaders are

it boycotting bipartisan negotiations, it tells you a little bit about hypocrisy. host: ohio, line for republicans. caller: good morning. i was commenting on what the senator mentioned about unions. unions were a great thing when the industrials were overcoming workers, and they made it tough on them. then they got to balance, and it actually was a lot better than. and then when the unions got the power, like everybody else, the complete power has a tendency to run over other people. in the auto industry, for example, they went out of the three there, and wn a they got

that published -- got that accomplished for what they were to get, they went over and -- with the other t wo, the two had to come along as the first one did, but they had a lot more money coming in, and date see what happened to the auto industry. it would be wonderful to have a balance here, because i am for both sides. how can we have one site prosper without cooperation of the other side? guest: let me just say this. i am not going to tell you every union decision or union is perfect. that is certainly not the case. but i think when you look at the automobile industry, what you see there is over a period of time, workers worked very hard to get a decent wage.

what it is is a middle-class wage. what i worry about a rematch is a disappearing middle class -- what i worry about very much is a disappearing middle class. as a result of the united autoworkers and others, union workers were getting a good, solid middle-class wage snow they had a retirement benefit and could send their kids to college. i grew up without any money at all in my family. my brother and i the first people in at the family to go to college. unions helped make that possible. what is happening now without unions is you are seeing more and more of the new jobs that are being created are minimum- wage or very slow-paying jobs. as i mentioned earlier, in the last 10 years, we saw theedian family incomgo down by $2,500 and millions of the jobs out there that our college graduates are going out and getting are now paying them -- are not paying them a living wage. in fact, they are jobs that require a college education.

we have got to rebuild, in my view, the middle class, the manufacturing sector, and unions can and must play a vital role in that process. host: earlier in the week, two of your colleagues, senator lieberman and senator coburn, introduced at plan. we want to show you the highlights, including increased eligibility from 65 to 67 over 12 years, wealthy americans pay 100% of premium costs, part b and d, unified deductible of $550 to replace cost sharing requirements, increased at a premium from 25% to 35 percent of the program's cost, again, for parts b and d. it also, according to cbo, save $600 billion over 10 years, and

reduces medicare's 75-year unfunded liabilities by $10 trillion. are you ready to support a proposal like this? guest: not in a million years. host: why is that? guest: you tell people who are struggling at 64, 65, guess what, you will not have health insurance. who is going to pick up the burden? what happens if i'm 66 and i have a heart attack? who is going to pay for it? what do you do? i think that is a preposterous proposal. my state of vermont i hope will lead the nation on that question. rob, we have to ask -- it is our entire health care system. people are seeing at 20% increase in their health care costs. the question we have to ask as a nation is a simple one when you talk about health care, medicare, and everything else -- why is it when we have a 50

million people without health insurance today, you have millions more withigh deductible, high co-payments, don't get to a doctor when a bank should, people will die because they did not get to a doctor when and they showed, why after all that we spend twice as ch as any industrialized nation on health care? the answer is, we have an incredibly wasteful, bureaucratic system dominated by private insurance companies whose function in life is not to provide quality cost-effective health care, is to make as much money as they can. the solution is inl medicare-for-all single payer system. that is the way to go, i hope my state of vermont will lead the nation. telling somebody who is 60ears

old that they will not have medicare, 67 -- that is to me beyond comprehension guest: . host: louisville, kentucky. caller: here in kentucky, we know a little bit about handicapping. as long as you have these believe the i don't word "coincidence." it costs so much money to run for office. the lobbyists -- to tout th -- the counties in virginia where lobbyists live -- i don't see how things can change because people are so indebted to lobbyists that they cannot do what is right for america. china charges us 25% tax carrots, whereas the products --

tax tariffs, whereas the products -- we get 2%,hina gets 25%. if you could address those issues -- guest: thank you very much for that excellent question. i think you hit the nail right on the head. the reason there are people seriously talking about giving tax breaks to millionaires cutting medicare and medicaid and education has not to do with what the american people want. the american people, in poll after poll, overwhelmingly oppose that agenda. it has everything to do of what john just talked about, the power of big money that surrounds washington and all the corporate interests, all wall street money, all of their lobbyists. as john indicated, increasingly, to get elected to any office, it costs an enormous amount of money. where do you think people will go to get the money? they will go to the wealthy and powerful, and the wealthy and

powerful say, "i will give you $5,000, this is what we want you to do." as john impolite -- as john implied, that impact is certainly has been seen in our trade policy. our trade policy is a total disaster. it is increasingly difficult to buy products made in the united states of america. i was dealing with the smithsonian museum. it is a great museum. go to the gift sho and the majority of their products are maden china and other undeveloped, third world countries. in ourovernment museum talking about american history, we had a little bit of success getting them to buy products made in america. but the nafta agreement that was pushed on cgress by big money interests who had power over both political parties -- the results are millions of jobs

were lost in this country, at factories shut down and moved abroad. john, i think that is a very good example of how big money was used to benefit large corporations and to punish working families. host: our next call for sator bernie sanders comes from minnesota on the line for independents. caller: good morning at. i hear a lot about raising taxes are not raising taxes, but i truly believe we need to learn about what has happened in our past from 1940 to 1990. the democrats controlled both the house and senate, and at that time, they decided to put a $30 trillion to $40 trillion 's in social security and medicare, and today we have a 0 trillion in unfunded debt. why should we continue to listen to these educated idiot's any longer and not put them all out?

est: the reason you should not vote everybody -- i hear that occasionally -- what is your point? what is your view? you have got to have a belief. do you really believe we should continue to give a huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country? if so, a vote for the candidates who believe that. do you really believe we should have a tradeolicy which encourages corporations to shut down in america and move to china? if so, but for those people. it is not a question of throwing everybody out. there are people in congress who have a very different points of view. he laughed at to determine what one of you makes sense to you -- you have got to determine what point of view makes sense to you. to simply say, gee, i will throw everybody out, i don't know if that makes a whole lot of sense. host: fairfax, virginia, tom

online for republicans. caller: senator sanders, that you for your time to i have a statement -- host: tom, i am running short on time. caller: i believe it is the root of our problem with congress being open to big money influence. what do you think would happen if we paid congress 5 $1,000 a year? -- $500,000 a year? guest: people in the country would go nuts. i don't support the -- i don't support that at all. congress, for a variety of reasons -- is not salary -- is alobbying and campaign contributions. a significanteason for the whole we are in right now is big money interests in this country. i believe one of the ways out its public funding of elelectios

>> tomorrow morning on "washington journal," a discussion on how republicans are managing their efforts to seek additional spending cuts attached to a bill to raise the debt ceiling. blanche lincoln will talk about her life after the senate and what she believes is a lack of bipartisanship in congress. after that, the executive director of the national assessment governing board. she gives the u.s. a report card of u.s. history knowledge. plus your e-mail, phone calls, and we. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here is our schedule starting

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. senate democrats hold a news briefing with reporters. senate republicans hold their own briefing, explaining why they boycotted a meeting moving trade agreements will work. a farewell ceremony for robert gates, who leaves his post heading the pentagon. and the amount of money spent on afghanistan and how to prevent money from being spent inappropriately. >> 83 light -- a free-lance video editor was invaded -- embedded with the 101st airborne division near the pakistan border. on june 22, president obama announced his plan to bring

10,000 u.s. troops home from afghanistan by the end of the year. >> the threat to security in afghanistan depend on where in afghanistan you are. my experience is mostly in the east. i only have a little bit of experience in the south. the south has a lot of open combat. a lot of the headquarters for the taliban. in the east, it depends on where you are. the provinces just south of kabul, where they used to have strong relationships with kabul, a lot of traffic moving between i.e.d. galleries where coalition troops and a large coalition presence is trying hard to lock those provinces down to protect kabul.

every step they take, they are threatened by i.e.d.s' that are killing native troops and afghans every year. as we move closer to the border and you head southeast toward pakistan and places like the paktika province, the threat there is not so much ied's. the terrain is rough and it is mountainous. the coalition troops and the taliban move on foot. the coalition also has helicopters that can get them between mountaintops. once they get off of the helicopters, they are back to walking around on that. ied's are lot less useful. they are optimized for destroying the vehicles and not for blowing up a group of men who can cover a square mile of terrain. in places like the paktika

province, you see more small arms fire, machine guns, snipers. it looks like a world war ii battle with guys hiding behind walls. on the coalition side, there is significant airpower. >> it is a critical area for insurgent infiltration as well as a historic avenue for the

movement of supplies from pakistan into afghanistan and into kabul. >> how would you characterize the district? >> there is a significant amount of influx and outflux of insurgent fighters to the area, mostly from pakistan moving into afghanistan. >> are preparing to go on a mission. tell me about that mission and what it is for. >> this is a standard reconnaissance mission from pakistan. the terrain is inaccessible. we are going to see what it looks like and to develop it for future clearing operations. >> what are the major challenges for that mission? >> first and foremost, the terrain is extreme and difficult to move.

the people have not seen a coalition presence in quite some time. >> what do you hope to achieve with the mission? >> to set the conditions for future operations and to find out what the atmosphere and to re are like so that we can continue our operation there to -- and to see what the terrain is like so we can continue our operations there. we have received a lot of indirect artillery and rocket fire. numbersan get bathose no. ied crease andy ied the

activity to decrease, it has a significant impact on the insurgent activities. >> richard. >> on april 4 and fifth, i was and that it with a unit of the 104 -- 101st airborne division that was trying to lock down the border between afghanistan and pakistan. the mountain district had seen no troops. a regiment flew out in helicopters and occupied two mountaintops. they had not seen a nato troops in three years. on this first air assault, the americans with just camp out on

the mountaintops and find some good vantage point and start looking around. look down at the valley. look down at the roads. look at any compounds they could see and try to gain a sense of who lives here, what is their normal pattern of life, are there overt signs of the taliban? is the taliban there? can we draw them out? we camped out on those mountaintops. the soldiers -- the villagers saw us. the taliban lost a couple of rockets. there was a minor skirmish and no one was hurt on either side. it was the first foray into a long, neglected district court taliban fighters.

>> this is the east paktika province. we are here to stop incoming traffic and certain traffic coming from pakistan into afghanistan that presses farther into kabul, a major city. this is the first point where we fight them off and keep them from going farther into the country. there are several main routes that come through all of these areas from pakistan into afghanistan. most of them are used for commerce. they trade a lot back-and-forth here. it is also used to bring in weapons and equipment to attack coalition forces.

right down here is the center for trade and commerce in the area. >> in places like the paktika province, where nato has not had had much of a presence until recently, this is one of the provinces that only began getting nato troops in the past year. the population is not friendly to the coalition. the population will harbor taliban by actors. they will hold weapons for them. -- the population will harbor taliban fighters. the taliban will target the civilian population. they will not target them with violence. you have to go and start visiting houses. you have to march out and start

knocking on doors demanding to be let in. and they do demands. if you do not let nato in, they will break the door down. not on the door and tried to put the nato forces in front. you go in and you start asking the hard questions. who has been here? where are the military men? what is in that box over there? show me around. unlocked back door. -- unlock that door. [dogs barking]

[foreign language] >> is anyone answering? >> yes. >> are we going in? >> the more time we give them, the more time they have to hide whatever they have.

[dogs barking]

>> who is the village here? okay. i will be sure to look him up and talk to them. -- talk to him.

>> a lot of patrols in a place like the paktika province end up being and in less process searching -- endless process searching scores of identical homes. there are locked boston -- locked boxes in this room. in 99% of the cases, no one in the house will say anything. we cannot find any evidence of any active support for the taliban. nato knows it happens. the taliban is watching nato. when they see nato move out, they will try to move the weapons to keep them out of nato's path. it is a cat and mouse game.

>> some of the guys came up and talked. we are going to set up a unit up here and lloyd around. is good.y in the shishop he is supposed to be back at 16:30. >> move to the high ground up there. >> i do not think anyone can argue that there are fewer attacks and less violence in afghanistan now than there have ever been. the number of bombs exploded.

the number of nato troops killed have only risen throughout the war. the only way you can argue that security is better is by interpreting conditions on the ground differently. you can say there are more afghan troops and police on the ground and more nato troops and more nato civilians and contractors. there are more coalition people on the ground now than ever. that is one way to interpret what security means, simply having a presence. more of them are dying. more of them are fighting. the talent that is not smaller or less active by all accounts that it -- the taliban is not a smaller or less active by all accounts that it ever has been. the way they know they are doing a good job is hard to say. it is still fairly rare for afghan security forces to go out

on their own patrols, at least meaningful patrols that are not brief. it is hard to say what is coming in afghanistan. and more afghan troops taking over day-to-day responsibilities. >> david axe was in bed with the u.s. army. the he is keeping wired to the times. to see this video game, he can see it in the search box. >> here is a quick look at our prime time schedule.

starting in about an hour, we would hear from the debt ceiling negotiations as democrats hold a news briefing with reporters. later, republicans held their own briefing explaining why they boycotted a markup. after that, a farewell ceremony. later, they examined the amount of money on afghanistan construction contracts and how to prevent them from being sent inappropriately. >> earlier today, at gary sinise aimed at helping first responders and their families. he also talked about his dimmers films and traveling with his fans around the world. held at the national press club, this is an hour.

the associated press and the 104th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading organization for journalists and we're committed through our programming and events such as lists to foster free press worldwide. -- such as this to foster free press worldwide. we welcome you to our website. on behalf of our members worldwide kollhoff i would like to -- worldwide, i would like to welcome our guests to be speaking today. if you hear applause in the audience today, we would like to note that members of the general public are attending

today. it is not necessarily of a lack of journalistic objectivity. [laughter] i would also like to welcome our audience on c-span and public radio. we have weekly podcast available for free down -- download on itunes and you can also follow us on twitter. after our guests, we'll have q&a and we will ask as many questions as time permits. i would ask the guests to stand up briefly as your name is announced first, the vice chairman of our and pc board of governors, a senior riegle -- writer with congressional quarterly. kendeigh vice president and assistant to the president of the uso. an editor with the washington post. the ceo of the disabled american veterans organization, the co-founder of the veterans

like memorial foundation and is a guest speaker today. it reporter for usa today and also a past npc president. the president and ceo of people to people international, and the granddaughter of dwight eisenhower and guest of mr. denise. -- mr. sinise. or speaking -- speaker committee chair is doing a fabulous job today. she organized this event. we will skip over our guest speaker for a moment. we have a news contributor from the daily beast. the research director for cnn. producer/director of "the lieutenant vanzandt." -- the lieutenant dan band. now a round of applause.

[applause] our guest speaker today is widely recognized for his humanitarian work on behalf of u.s. military troops and he is an award winning actor. he now plays a detective, the start of the -- star of a cbs series. he has been in a number of collaborations with tom hanks. it is worth noting that he played a president in a television movie "truman," that particular president as a matter of fact. the former governor, george wallace as well. it was his academy award winning role in the movie "forest gump " " that has

endeared him to many fans. he plays lieutenant dan and is still known to many as lt. dan. he is here to announce the launch of a national organization, the foundation to support military service members, veterans, offers responders and their families. and it is a culmination of years of support for u.s. service members and their families. he has served as a host for national memorial day concert on the washington mall, and has made more than 40 uso tours and over 150 appearances to entertain our troops at military bases worldwide from iraq to afghanistan to guantanamo bay. most often, he travels with his group, which you have heard about.

the cookies on the table are a tribute to that. they are the focus of a feature- length documentary that chronicles the band travels to entertain the troops. they have a website. they are doing a launch very soon where people can watch that. kfar the proceeds will benefit the gary sinise foundation. while dismissing the speculation that he is running for political office -- [laughter] but we might follow up on that today. our guest has been an outspoken critic of bureaucracy and red tape that often delays and prevents service members and veterans from getting care and benefits. he has said the nation is not doing enough to help disabled veterans and u.s. troops wounded in iraq and afghanistan. he has called on the government to -- and the private sector to spend more on victims of posttraumatic stress disorder and get them some help. he is a star who moonlights as a soldier's advocate.

our speaker has questioned his own industry at times while producing films our -- producing films that portray our troops in a negative light. in a film about soldiers on the front lines in iraq and among his many awards and honors, he is a recipient of the presidential award of freedom, one of only two actors to get that and 110 people in our nation's history. he also received the medal of honor bob hope excellence in entertainment award and the harry s. truman good neighbor award. as co-founder of operation international children, he has provided school supplies to hundreds of thousands of children were u.s. troops are deployed. here today to discuss his plans to help veterans and fallen soldiers as well as their families, please welcome mr. gary sinise. [applause]

>> thank you. i can cut my speech short out. [laughter] i would like to thank the members of the national press club to -- for the invitation to speak today. it is a great honor to return. having first have the opportunity as the national spokesperson for the disabled

veterans for life memorial foundation and again in support of the documentary "brothers at war." when i think of the people who have stood at the spot, our national heroes, great figures of history, prime ministers, presidents, an actor from "csi new york." friday night, 9:00 p.m. [laughter] it is my shameless plug for the show. not that there is anything wrong with being an actor, of course, but my being here today does demonstrate how those of you in our national press corps and brought attention to the world around us, eager to hear from all manner of people with differing points of view, and that is good for america. thank you again. i would like to of knowledge a few people here today. last night, the press club have the opportunity to screen a documentary film about my band, our troops, first responders, and many wonderful people who support them. as of july 4, the award winning

documentary will be available online at ltdanbandmovie.com for only $4 and generously, one out of work -- $1 out of every $4 and if will go to the foundation. [applause] i want to thank the director jonathan flora and his wife and producer, deborah. [applause] un your team have worked very hard and i wish you all the best with the film. -- you and your team out of free hard and i wish you all the best with the film. i am proud of it. congratulations with the july 4 launch. if what i need each are in the course for my new foundation, it takes all hands on deck to keep the engine running and the ship steaming ahead. this mission could not be accomplished without the support of a fantastic team. some of them are here today and

i want to say thank you to stacey will, then robyn, eric matthews, and especially judy otter, and has worked round- the-clock to make the launch of the foundation for a success. thank you all. [applause] i am also thrilled to have one of the foundations founded to reader -- contributors here today, tony. he is a good friend and also executive producer of "lieutenant dan band: for the common good. he has given us tremendous

supporter of the years and he is here today. thank you, buddy. [applause] i would also like to acknowledge two friends, mary eisenhower and art wilson. i have had the privilege of working with both people international and disabled american veterans for many years and i am honored to have you both here today. thank you for coming. [applause] as i confess, i am an actor. i have been blessed to -- with good fortune that my career has been lifted to a level some recognition. i can gauge the interest and energy of a number of people. growing up in a working-class home in chicago, i have learned and have tried to live up to the common grief -- common virtues that my grandparents and parents based their lives on, hard work, honesty in all things, fairness, generosity, and above all the love of this great america that have bless them with the freedom to say what they would and choose as they wished. and like so many of my generation for many years, i more or less to of the freedom for granted. until santa maria blevins, 2001. -- until 9/11, 2001. it was a bright, sunny morning

and images from ground -- ground zero assaultive me. i suddenly understood how vulnerable our great and powerful country truly is. as i came to understand the dark forces loose in the world, i have a new appreciation for why my folks and their folks greeted every day in america as a new beginning. they did not take it for granted. and now, nor could i. i wanted, needed, of role in helping to face this new national challenge. as i watched our military response and saw our young men and women able to bear the most extreme hardship, even to the most final personal sacrifice, my heart was with them. having veterans in my family and having worked with veterans groups on and off over the

years, i knew they were where i wanted to put my efforts to employ such recognition has i had to devote much time and treasurer to their well-being. and so, i was called to greater action. and that journey has enriched my life beyond anything i ever could have imagined. i had intended to give, but in the end, i have received more

than anything i've brought to this. like the actors my father and uncles admired during their military service, i volunteered for the uso, is anxious to help the military personnel and their families know that they would not receive the lack of support that awaited our veterans returning from vietnam. it began by visiting the war zone, offering moral support, shaking hands, autographs, taking pictures. but soon, i was visiting the wounded in our military hospitals and then entertain the military in both the u.s. and abroad. and over the years through this work, i have met extraordinary people. they have inspired me with their courage and perseverance to get through, no matter what it takes, the worst of times. like my dear friend former marine and retired firefighter john viggiano, who on that terrible day lost his two sons when the towers fell. one of them, john jr., a firefighter, and the other, joe, a police officer.

it was on my first trip to iraq in june of 2003 that john and i met the king -- and became fast friends. he introduced me to many of new york's bravest at the fdny who have inspired me with their selflessness, their brotherhood, and their willingness to help others. i am proud to have played a part in the building of the brooklyn wall of remembrances, which honors all first responders killed at the world trade center on 9/11, and i am privileged to support their fire family transport foundation. there are some of my most special friends. in november, 2003, i made my second uso a trip to iraq, and while i was there i visited a

school where u.s. troops interacted with the local children. the troops had completely refurbished the school and were so protective of the children there. this was an inspiration. as soon as i returned i reached -- as soon as i return, i went to my own children school and suggested we put supplies together for distribution to the iraqi schools. what started as a grass-roots effort became a permanent institution in 2004 when i co- founded operation iraqi children with the off -- with the author of "sea biscuit" and most recently, "unbroken," lorez gillibrand. -- laura hillibrand and others. we have delivered more than half a million toys, school

kids, backpacks, pairs of shoes, arab land -- arabic language books, and sets of sports equipment, all of which have been distributed by our troops to the children in the conflict areas of iraq, afghanistan, djibouti, and the philippines. [applause] after hurricane katrina hit the gulf coast, operation international children established the oic katrina relief fund, sending school supplies to the affected area. and through our military, we are now reaching out to the children in need all over the world, most recently taking part in a military humanitarian relief effort in haiti.

it is my hope that with the help of oic's who was partner, the newly established gary sinise foundation, if this effort can be expanded to support our troops wherever they need assistance in their humanitarian mission. during the early handshake stores to iraq, germany, and italy, i realized my next logical step. i persuaded the uso to let me take a group of musicians i played with on a tour, so i would not only been beading and visiting with the troops, but entertaining as well purify -- meeting and visiting with the troops, but entertain them as well. forever i meant fogh -- went on these early trips i would troops that did not know me as gary sinise, but as lieutenant dan. [laughter] along with my fellow musician, kimo williams, i formed the lieutenant dan band. and we took our first concert tour to korea and singapore and diego. we have also done concert in alaska, germany, belgium, the u.k., the netherlands, italy,

okinawa, guantanamo bay and afghanistan, as well as dozens of bases all over the u.s. over 40 concert tours in all. i have been on a handshake tours to iraq, kuwait, qatar, germany, italy and i have also had the privilege of the support of hundreds of organizations through appearances with and without the band, all in support of our men and women in uniform and organizations that support them. but as i said, whenever i gave, i was more than amply repaid. i have been allowed to be a part of our amazing military community, to share in their camaraderie. -- in their camaraderie, and their daily lives, to see these people -- in so many ways the

best of us -- a close and personal. as often as i can i visit the wounded here at home and overseas. at each of these visits i am struck by the humility of the young men and women receiving treatment, their courage and determination, their acceptance, and their dedication to our country and their fellow warriors. lending a hand to these brave men and women is truly one of the most rewarding things that anyone can do.

and for all they do and all they have sacrificed, they do not ask much in return. knowing that they are not forgotten and that their sacrifice is appreciated makes a world of difference. the first, and in some ways, hardest obstacle to being of use is coming to terms with the enormity of the need. for example, in partnership with the stephen siller tunnel towers foundation, the gary sinise foundation is helping to build specially designed homes for three severely wounded service members who have survived, losing both arms and both legs. the first surviving quadruple amputee is iraq war veteran brendan morocco. the fund-raising effort to build his home began last year with a lieutenant dan band concert in s.i. and i am happy to say that all the money was eventually raised, and the first of these smart homes has been completed and brandon will be moving in soon.

if [applause] i saw crandon at the house yesterday and his spirits are high. he is an amazing young man. funding for the second home began with a concert in st. louis on may 27. and we will begin raising money for the third home at a concert in illinois on july 16. these courageous individuals have given so much and it is a good feeling to know there is something we can give back to them. they inspire me beyond words. often but as -- but as i said, the enormity of the need is great and there are many who need our help. i am also a privilege to support and now serve on the board of snow ball express, which creates hope and new memories for the children of military fallen heroes who have died while on active duty since 9/11. thousands of children have lost a dad or ahman in these wars. -- or a mom in these wars. i am proud that this year, along with the american airlines veterans initiatives, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers, our foundation will once again be part of this worthy effort to support our

goldstar children. thethere's hope for warriors. an organization founded by military wives to support wounded u.s. service members, their families, and families of the fallen, are foundation was a proud sponsor of their recent fund-raiser here in washington d.c. these are a few of the efforts that have kept me busy these many years. while the list of heroism is an

liz, the needs of these heroes is just as long -- is and less, the needs of these heroes is just as long. and how we address this is a need -- major national issue. as calvin coolidge said, and "the nation which forgets its heroes will itself be forgotten." the sad reality from vietnam is that we learned the hard way that turning our backs and ignoring our warriors weaken our nation. the hope is that we learn from this and will strive to do better. in a recent speech to the young cadets at west point, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, expressed his fear of a disconnect between the american people and its military. he said, "our work is appreciated, of that i am certain.

there is not a town or a city board people do not conveyed to me they're great pride in what we do, even though house who do not support the war's -- in what we do. even those who do not support the worst support the troops. but i fear they do not know us. i fear they do not comprehend the burden of the full -- the full weight of the burden we carry or the price we pay when we return from battle of." as someone who can visit our troops in remote places around the globe and has had a close-up look at their skill and dedication and sacrifice, i hope to address that this connection by sharing what i have

experienced and expressing my belief in how fortunate we all are off to have such an exceptional military force in the dangerous and unpredictable world we live in. as journalist, you know that such a dark forces are loose in our day. it is our military that denies these enemies and preserve our freedom, often at the nearest possible cost. but it does not end with a battle. countless millions throughout the world know our military through the other face of america's power, bringing hope and humanitarian relief whenever and wherever it is needed, without favor, to a friend or foe alike. when there is a national disaster -- a natural disaster, japan, indonesia, haiti, it is not china's aircraft carriers that rush to aid with their massive manpower. it is the united states military.

it is critical that we do well if we can to care for the needs of our active duty and retired service members of the military and their families. surely, that is what we can do -- that is the least of all we can do for those who risk their lives every day to defend our freedom. and it cannot be temporary. that is why all my efforts have been pulled together through the formation of the garrison these foundation. our motto -- gary sinise

foundation. our motto and its mission statement, to serve our nation by honoring its defenders, veterans, offers responders, their families and those in need. we do this by creating and supporting unique programs designed to entertain, and you gave, inspire, strengthen -- educate, inspire, strengthen, and build communities. it is my hope that by beginning this fund raising and program generating entity, we will be able to do more to honor the men and women who surf by meeting their needs. -- serve by meeting their needs. i did not serve, but i have never been more reward them when i am with the military community and see a -- the smiles a little visit can bring. it is a way to give back so much. i will never again take for granted how our freedom must be protected on a daily basis, minute by minute. history teaches there have always been those that would rob us of our freedom in order to empower themselves. what i have shared with you today are the feelings, believes, and aspirations that lie far outside the interests of my chosen profession. while my currency as a successful actor may have gotten here, i am first and foremost a citizen of this marvelous and remarkable united states of america. today, you gave me the use of your immensely valuable megaphone. i hope i used it to address

issues of concern to all of us. because everything we are, especially journalists, you who employ the first amendment on all our behalf, everything is predicated on freedom. and i trust we all take great pride that we have so many exceptional people serving out there to protect just that. as winston churchill reminded us during world war ii, "peace and tranquility will only be restored if everyone did their bit." he considered his it no more important than that of the elderly woman knitting socks for soldiers. that is my aspiration, to do my bit, no matter how large or small. and i know that in this, i am

no different than any of you, were any americans. -- or any americans. if we are a great people. we can rise -- we are a great people. we can rise to this challenge and meet its and do as we have always done, master it. those marvelous people reserve -- who served for our freedom and comfort deserve nothing less. thank you. [applause]

>> i don't want to dare stand in the way of an entertainer who could get for their applause, but i want to have an opportunity to get some questions answered. thank you for those prepared remarks and we will follow a of it. obviously, in an audience like this we have a journalist, working people, some people from the public and some people engaged in a similar kind of cause that you have been engaged in. when we are talking about your foundation, i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how that is structured. tell us about your staff, where it is located, and what the specific mission of the foundation is involved in a. >> as i have said, have been very busy trying to support a lot of different organizations, going out and raising money by showing up.

somebody like me can show off and draw attention to an organization. i can vote -- to donate my band and the kind of thing, but i can only be in so many places throughout the year. i got to a point where i said, i spend a weekend after weekend, month after month, year after year trying to support as many efforts as i can. if i'm either going to pull back or ramp up in some way. how can i ramp up if i am already committed all over? one of the natural things to do was to create an entity, a foundation that can draw in additional resources, promote the programs that i am supporting, try to guide people who are looking for ways to support and organizations that are reputable that i have been supporting, guide them to those organizations.

if people do not know which one to go to, we are in a fund- raising effort ourself with our foundation. we will guide that money to the right place. if you are looking for organizations that i have been supporting over the years, i stake my reputation on all of the organizations that are listed on our website. you can go directly to them. we want to ramp up our efforts and do good things. i have a great staff. we are located in los angeles. we are beginning this effort right now. >> one of our questioners ast if you could get congress and the administration's to do just one thing for the vets, what with that one thing be? >> cut through the red tape and get down to business. it takes a lot to get your benefits. [applause] >> let's take it a bit more micro then that, because there is an inherent inefficiency in our government, hence the suburbs of washington d.c. [laughter]

not so much of a joke, but is actually true. when you see it needs been on that and is part of your ambition to manage resources with needs, whether it is the government for you, what are people missing out there? -- the government or you, what are people missing out there? >> there are a lot of disabled american veterans. we have 3 million living disabled american veterans. i believe 1.5 million are part of the disabled american veterans organization. there are other people trying to get out there and fill the gap. the government can only do so much. i realize that. we want to encourage organizations to get out there and do more. but for example, you should not

have to go through all of this red tape all of the time to get your benefits. i have a vietnam veteran brother-in-law who crashed his helicopter and never apply for his benefits because he got home from vietnam and it was bad to be a veteran at that time. he disappeared in the system. he had some problems. we brought him in and worked with him. it took four years for a guy who crashed his helicopter to cut through the red tape and get his benefits. i realize we are trying to look back and search through records 30 and 40 years ago. but what about some of the returning veterans from everything after vietnam? we want to make sure that we do as much as we can. i am also going to say that looking back 40 years ago, compared to what is happening today with regard to our returning veterans, there is a big difference. there are a lot of wonderful organizations that have popped up and we did learn some hard lessons from vietnam of how not to treat our service members.

but you know, we can never do enough and we can always try to do a little bit more. >> this is perhaps a variation of the same question. someone is asking what is the most troubling deficiency you have seen in the treatment of assistance given -- given to returning soldiers? >> you know, returning soldiers that are injured? >> that is just how they opposed it. whether they are injured from their service or have come home kind of rapidly -- >> there are some good stories. i know some not so good stories. let's say, you are a returning veteran. your service is going to be

over when you get back. you have been in a platoon in the mountains of afghanistan. you saw 10 or 15 of your brothers killed in front of your eyes, many more wounded. if you come back. there is a domestic problem at home. there's a problem there. you get out of the service. you are despondent. you disappear. we have a lot of homeless veterans who have just tried to get away from it all. if we have to reach out to them and do what we can for them. and then we will have our hospitals. walter reed, bethesda, launched will -- launsiool, balboa. and if i was injured, i would want to be at walter reed. they have an exceptional staff there. i think they were overwhelmed at that time. it was good the "washington

post" discovered some of those issues and brought them to life. the address them. -- they addressed them. we are taking very good care of our wounded veterans. but what happens when they go out? what happens to someone like brendan morocco who has lost both arms and both legs? what happens if the committee does not take care of them? i would encourage you to reach out to veterans. seek out their families. how can you help them? especially if they are wounded for life. that community is critical to how they are going to live the rest of their life. >> someone asked that very question. if a person knows of an individual or a family in need, should they alert your foundation as to the interim -- individual?

>> that happens all the time. people reach out to the foundations that have established themselves to be reliable. but also, those communities can take responsibility. you have somebody who goes and is in service to our country. they are disabled. they go back to a very small town somewhere in the united states, a very small community. they are disabled for life. they might not be able to get a job. the community should take care of them wounded warrior. find that wounded warrior a job. we need to find more of our wounded warriors and returning veterans of jobs out there. it is important that we give back to them and help them. your service in service to our freedom mean something to us, so we're going to embrace you and take care of you. >> last year, the defense department reported more than 1100 suicides among returning service members. over the course of your, that

was one every 36 hours. is the u.s. military doing enough to address the problem and what can people in the private sector do? >> this is a very serious problem. i am involved with some mental health issues. i worked very collaborative lee work with a health care alliance run by my friend gave mcintyre. -- dave mcintyre. he is very committed and actively involved with the military to address this problem of suicide. i am kind of in the stress relief business. i am in the morale boosting business. we've teamed up and we spent a lot of time with medal of honor

recipients, going to basis, talking to these service members, reaching out to their families, trying to communicate to them that there are alternatives to taking your life. sometimes they do not think there are. that is a very, very serious problem. it is important the message we send out to our military folks that we've is is always -- duprey visit is always to reach out to someone that you recognize is in need. those signs are clear and we need to try to do a lot more. it is a very, very serious problem. there are a lot of people dedicated to this. we have to do a lot more. >> than there are the people who have passed away. just this week, it has been reported on a number of different fronts that the fbi is running an army investigation of alleged wrongdoing at arlington cemetery, some of that perhaps financial wrongdoing of the loss of -- and the loss of

remains at the cemetery. what is your reaction when you hear stories like that? and is it true that it undermines morale in hostile territory? >> i do not know that much about that particular situation. but i would think it would, yes. i want to mention the tragedy assistance program for survivors. bonnie carroll is over here and she started this wonderful program to work with the families of our fallen heroes. tavis is an incredible organization -- taps is an incredible organization that reaches out to a family as soon as they have been notified that their service member has been killed in action. they are doing wonderful work in making sure that those killed in action, their families are well taken care of and they get what they need. it is a difficult business that bonnie is in.

but she has personal -- a personal relationship with that because she lost her husband. bonnie is right over here right now and i am privileged to have you here today. [applause] >> and by and large, in the work that is done in the private sectors, of course, is very useful and very good. there are occasionally some stories, like in the government, some stories that do not turn out so well. if "rolling stone" magazine reported on some foundations that were started by musicians that have essentially had to be restructured or " -- or closed. when you are on the road, how are you going to ensure that your foundation is operating as efficiently as possible and, indeed, it is a cause that people will find the on the lure of your personality, which is powerful, that they want to give to an organization like that?

>> those screwy musicians -- [laughter] with their foundations, yes. i do not know how to address that, except by saying that personally, i will speak about my work. i have had my boots on the ground here for quite a long time and have dedicated every spare moment to this work in the last 10 years, and prior to that with the vietnam veterans and disabled veterans. i am not somebody who is going to say -- i would stake my reputation and character on it. i would not tell you to donate to my foundation and then make a mess of it.

i am not going to do that. that is not me. [applause] >> lieutenant dan band, the film, that all goes back to a story line that was involved in the vietnam war. you alluded in your speech to out essentially, vietnam veterans were not always welcome home. those who are alive can remember that. -- who were alive can remember that. is it heartwarming to see how the country has changed over time, and leaving aside the politics of an individual engagement, the people seem to have a universal support for the u.s. military? >> as i said, we can never do enough for veterans, as far as i'm concerned. but we can always try to do a little bit more. what has been heartening is to see how many vietnam veterans

have gotten involved with our active-duty service members. it is a partially healing thing for them, to be able to say, i'm going to take care of this soldier when he returns home and make sure that nothing happens to him. i want what happened to me never to happen again, so i will take an active part in that. if i have met hundreds of vietnam veterans that are doing just laughed, reaching out. we did learn -- i have met hundreds of vietnam veterans that are doing just.com, reaching out. we did learn our lesson as far as that goes. as admiral mullen said, wherever he goes, he sees support. if your disconnected to the military, as he said, if you do not have a personal vision of with someone in the military or you do not have a family member or friend who is serving, life goes on. pizzas are being made, movies are coming, the gas prices are getting higher, and we are going about our lives.

we do have some job problems in the country and all of that, but life goes on for a lot of folks. the military families are the ones that are feeling the sacrifice and a listing of this particular conflict right now. -- the sting of this particular conflict right now. you know, 0.05% are actually defending the country. that is a small percentage. we owe them. it is heartening to be able to give something back. it is a good feeling to take care of these freedom fighters. they are our defenders. and i have been involved with veterans for many years through democrat presidents, republican presidents. it is not about that.

it is about the fact that freedom is precious. we saw on 9/11 what 19 determined guys with box cutters could do. and god forbid they get a hold of something more serious, a backpack full of anthrax, something like that. you know, a suitcase nuclear bomb. all of that is not fantasy. it is real. and there are people that live 24/7, 365 days a year wondering how they can destroy the u.s. and thankfully, we have people 24/7, 365 days a year, every single day, every single minute trying to prevent bad things from happening to the united states of america. if we all saw what happened on september 11. we all felt that vulnerability and fear.

to what is going to happen? and then we thought there was anthrax running through the mail and we thought, what is going on? what is going to happen to our country? and we thought, where is the military? what are they going to do? well, they are still doing it, and so we have to back them up. >> if you are one of a relatively small handful of prominent celebrities who have supported republican candidates and causes. my sense is that you do not wear your fault -- party politics on your sleeve. but is it hard to be republican operating in the entertainment industry? [laughter] >> hooted -- where did you come up with that? who's question is that? [laughter] look, i do what i can. i am a citizen of the united

states. i can vote for one. i grew up in chicago. you know, it is daley country out there. [laughter] i just try to pass the message that we live in a free country. we can say what we want. we can choose what we wish and we can stand up for what we believe in. >> have you tried to engage other entertainment people in the cause of our soldiers in the military? have you tried to engage some of your colleagues in the business? and how successful have you been if you have? >> yes, i have taken different people on different trips with me. michael t. williamson, he played bubba in forest gump. he went with me on my 2009 trip to afghanistan. i have taken various people to various bases. i recently took david james elliott and clint howard to camp pendleton when i played down there. dana carvey has performed for the troops at fort hood. right after the terrible tragedy there, i set up a concert down there about a month later and we went down and did it gave a concert.

i call dana and he came down and performed. are recently -- i recently did a concert at camp pendleton and data came down there. -- dana came down there. >> people are interested in the creative side of your work as well. you have played president truman and have been floated as a possible candidate for various offices. have you ever been involved -- interested in politics? >> i am an actor. >> so is ronald reagan. [laughter] >> you know, we get paid to give our lines and hit our mark. no, i've never thought about any of that. >> what american national political figure would you like to consider playing, given the fact that you have played politicians in the past? or have you ever thought about that?

>> i have not thought about playing another political figure. i have done a few of those. it was fun. i would like to play jimmy doolittle, a great american hero, medal of honor recipient. there are so many great american stories. i have been privileged to be a part of the medal of honor society for a while. i am on one of their boards. i work with the medal of honor society since 2006. i have met some amazing, amazing american heroes in the medal of honor society. i traveled with them on a regular basis to military bases around the country to deliver good messages to our troops. when i see the medal of honor recipients and i see the troops standing there listening to those guys, they can make an impact. and jimmy doolittle received the medal of honor -- a great

american story. there are a lot of stories like that, great heroes that i would consider trying to play if i thought i could play them. >> and of course, you have the ongoing television series work. are you planning to be in the motion pictures in the near term? anything you are working on at the moment? >> sometimes that is not up to me. [laughter] but i am happy to sit scsi new york got picked up for another season -- csi new york got to go for another season. we're coming into season 8. [applause] that will keep me busy as of july 20. one of the things that i do hope happens is that people go to this ltdanbandmovie.com website. it is an interesting thing that

happened with the film. they will launch it on line to people all around the world who want to put $4 in there and watch it. it is not a download. it is a pay-per-view for about a month's time. 3-, you get to see some of the people that i interact with every year, every month. you see the entertainment side. it is an entertainment -- entertaining film, in moving film. you get to see some of the people i am supporting. it kept me in the movie came to actually participate in this film. ltdanbandmovie.com, we hope people go to bed. it is a cause-driven movie. $1 out of every $4 will be donated to the gary sinise foundation and we will take that back to the troops and their families and first responders, and people who need it. >> one more question about lieutenant dan before last month -- ask my last question. it seems celebrities grow to resent the world that has become so related to them.

you have obviously embraced it. was there ever a time you got irritated with that association? or have you been good with it all along? >> i had to get used to it. it is just something that happened. when you are in a movie like that, you know that is so popular -- "forest gump" was so popular. but it was not just playing a character in a movie. i realized about a month after i did the film, i got a call from the disabled american veterans. that is how i got involved with the dav they wanted me to come

to the national convention because i was playing a disabled vietnam veteran and they liked the way i did it. they asked me to come to their international convention. if it was a very moving experience, something i will never forget, standing there in a room of thousands of disabled veterans and having them applaud. those that could stand up for standing up. others were in wheelchairs' applauding me for playing a disabled veteran and they all wanted to call me lt. dan. if they all related me -- related to me as lt. dan. i started going overseas and give tours for the troops and they all related to me as lt. dan. the story of lt. dan is a resilience story. he goes to the understandable anger of having his military

career taken away from him, cut down. he goes through the understandable anger and threw the glove of a friend who reaches out and pulls him up, he stands up again -- through the love of a friend who reaches out and pulled him out, he stands up again. prior to "forest gump" we have not seen a vietnam veteran portrayed that way, as someone who can move on and do well. the story of that particular character resonates with the military community that i interact with every single day. how could i say, hey, do not call me that. -- do not call me that? [laughter] no, no! [laughter] the character is alive for them. and that is ok with me. and that is ok with me.