putting social security at more risk because we were depriving it of revenue. there was a proposal to have another payroll tax holiday that could affect social security like this year. that did not end up being part of the still that we approve last night. perhaps providing temporary relief to small business employs, that might be a good thing, but longer-term, we could not afford to do that without risking social security. host: this goes on to the senate today. c-span2. the vote is expected around noon today. 60 votes are necessary to get through that chamber. john cornyn tweets this. but if you go to as facebook page, he goes on to say that there is a paradigm shift in washington, d.c.

the tea party has changed the terms of this discussion. it sounds like he will vote for this debt deal. for wayne, indiana, independent caller. caller: i would like to extend caller: i would like to extend my regrets to mr. obama due to the fact that he grew up like a lot of this young blacks in america, hoping that he could even be a president. maybe things could be changed in the way that he grow up. he might sing things that matt need to be changed. is it possible for politicians voices to be bigger than the people they represent? can they somehow become bigger and ignore what they were sent there to do? if they were sent there to do one thing in the people ask for

something different, can they ignore that different thing and go for it with their own agenda? go for it with their own agenda? and i would like to ask that -- if the gentleman has ever seen in congress mr. boehner interrupting the present during one of his initial step of the union addresses? i thought that was so -- host: we have enough there to work with. guest: i do not believe that was mr. boehner, the was joe wilson of south carolina. that was a disrespectful moment for the congress and the americans -- and the country. he was admonish and he used the occasion to raise money for is reelection campaign. i think it was a shameful moment. no matter what party they president may belong to, when they are performing their duties in congress as our guest, we

have to be respectful to the president and the office. i comport myself away and i think most members do on both sides of the aisle. with respect your question about the relationship of a member of congress to his or her constituency and how to best represent them, i think that is a give-and-take process. most of us have many mechanisms for making sure that our decisions are informed, they reflect the value systems that of voters -- that the voters are firm denote collecting as, but you have to stay in touch with a constituency to make sure you understand where they are on issues. that does not mean that your slavishly of pot -- devoted to popular opinion. but where are your constituents? you have a town hall meetings and telephone tall house meetings. the use social media and meet with people all the time to try to make sure that we are engaging our public on issues of

the day. at the end of the day, someone once said there are two kinds of political leaders. there are thermostats and thermometers. thermostats set the temperature, the moment there's only measure. you have to find a comfortable balance between the two. leadership sometimes means having to take a position that may not have broad public support but you know is the right thing to do. host: a republican in california. caller: good morning. a couple of savings that i like to bring up. for the sake of bringing them up. do not by hand that feeds you, is one. host: what you mean by that? caller: it seems to me like everybody today, they just want more and more.

they do not care what it costs somebody else. they did not care. they did not care. host: adding to your point, a tweed. guest: that is actually not true. the republicans just finished a successful campaign strategy last year accusing democrats of cutting medicare funding by $500 billion as part health care reform act. just last night, have a loss on the democratic side of the all voted for significant cuts, additional cuts in this deficit reduction deal. that just is not true. i understandthe caller has accepted it. but looking at the facts, it is not true. but sometimes democrats are very reluctant to view spending all

same. i would respectfully submit that it is a problem on the other side of the aisle or some of my colleagues think that the value is nothing. not all spending is the same. republican presidents like eisenhower understood the value of federal investment in creating the interstate highway system. it had a huge return on investment. whatever the cause, it is hard to measure the positive economic benefits that america was able to accrue because of that strategic investment. investment in human capital and retraining pays off. these are just not willy-nilly spending because we like to spend. they are strategic investments for the future of this country. that is the clash of values. we do not hear those values all too often on the other side of the aisle. theirs is a more darwinian

approach than the democratic approach, and frankly i think both sides need to give a little. sometimes democrats do want to spend too much or not -- or are not as always as cash conscious in how we pay for that. on the other hand, republicans have taken a meat axe approach which will hurt american competitiveness going forward. host: it looks like the virginia race will be a close want from the polls so far. had you think this that deal in negotiations will play out in a race like that in virginia, a state that can go either way. guest: it plays well for former gov. tim kane. he had to deal with precisely this kind of challenge because the budget was hemorrhaging because of the economic downturn that was beginning. he was able to manage to balance

every budget during his term without the meat axe approach to strategic investment while preserving virginias much followed investments in higher education, for example, and preserving aid to localities so that they would not go under water. he should get a lot of credit for showing us how it can be done, avoiding this rancor and avoiding some of the worst pain that otherwise may have been inflicted. host: congressman, thank you. we will continue this discussion with a freshman republican from alabama. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> consumer spending numbers showing a drop of 0.2% in june has added to concerns on wall street about the economic recovery. ahead of the belt, dow futures are down 45 points. an update on representative giffords'surprise visit last

night. congressman debbie wasserman schulz, a friend, remarked saying the wounded congresswoman returned to use in -- houston adding she still had a way to go. she was so appreciative of the outpouring of support. but gabrielle giffords shot in the head in the parking lot of tucson store seven months ago. former detroit mayor kilpatrick was released from prison early this morning after serving just over one year for violating probation in a criminal case. he still faces a criminal corruption trial that could send him back. the former mayor says the department of corrections has given me only 24 hours to leave the state of michigan. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> that which was removing the veil of ignorance from human understanding is an american intervention. >> if you missed the latest documentary, "the library of congress," there is a preview right now on our youtube channel. become a subscriber. it is free. you can watch the entire library of congress documentary and hundreds of other timely videos online at youtube.com/cspan. you are watching c-span and. every morning, a washington journalist, our live call in program connecting you with elected officials, policy makers, and journalists. weekdays, the u.s. house. supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday, "the

communicator's." on sunday, "newsmakers," "q&a," and "prime minister's questions peacoat you can find it in d.c.'s been a video library. c-span -- washington your way. host: congressmen brooks from alabama was one of the 66 house republicans that voted no on the debt deal. any predictions on what this will look like in 2012? guest: the "no" vote will look better and better as this goes on as they see what was in the bill. host: why did you vote no? guest: n number of factors. one was the process. we get legislation monday

morning and are expected to vote on it monday evening and it only involves the $2.40 trillion. that is a matter of great substance, probably the most important vote we will cast during this session of congress. it is not doing the people's business in the right way. we should have had more time so the public could demand -- understand better and budget experts could have read it to get back to us so we can make more informed decisions. then there is the substance of it. for a practical standpoint, all this does is kick the can down the road two years. in 2013 there will be another debt crisis. america will have $2.40 trillion in additional debt burden. we will be in a weaker position. you can talk about national defense and the balance budget amendment, but there are many factors involved. this does not solve the problem. host: part of that was put

forward by speaker john boehner, putting the bill forward without three days of review. are you disappointed with the speaker? guest: i am disappointed with everyone told to put forward a process that did not involve the public to clearly understand this legislation before we had to vote. i understand with the artificial date of august the second. i do believe it truly was artificial just like when it was announced back in may. that was what the senate leadership, house leadership, and white house post for. -- pushed for. i really would have preferred that this bill would have been on their monitors of the public could have better understood what was in it. host: you do not feel that the tea party or those like yourself for advocating for what in this debate? guest: i do not focus on the tea party, republicans, or republicans.

-- or democrats. i focus on america. this does not solve the issue. i cannot believe america came out ahead. might we have bought ourselves more time? two years. the best analogy is you have a family sitting at the dinner table who has not looked at their finances in a long time. they go over their finances and discover they are only earning $50,000 per year in the go over es and -- they're expensiv they figure out they are spending $80,000. then they look at their visa bill. what is the solution? borrowing to take care of the deficit. that is not the way to solve it. you have to cut spending or else you up to work harder to generate more income. you do not borrow an additional $60,000 to pay that $30,000 per

year gap. then you get a visa bill that is $380,000, and soon enough that will put you in bankruptcy. those numbers i give you correspond to the $14.50 trillion deficit and corresponds to the $3.50 trillion expenditures on a yearly basis and the $2.40 trillion revenue. host: the finally come is that this goes forward without your vote and do you feel that your voice, your argument is adequately represented in the leadership structure that you have in the house republicans? guest: that is hard to say. i do not know what goes on in the leadership meetings. i am just a freshman. i do not know what arguments are being advanced or not advanced. personally, i believe there's only one solution to the problem which is the balanced budget amendment. host: do you. the leadership has not been straight with you when they hold a teleconference meetings and

they tell you what they have been arguing for, but in the end result that is not what you got. guest: these conferences are informing us why of what has transpired, what the information in the agreement is going to reveal. at that cage -- stage, it is not the case of us having a dialogue of the best approach. there are other listening sessions, which is what they are called, in kevin mccarthy's office where we have a greater dialogue. when you have 242 republican congressmen and the three leaders with a john boehner, kevin mccarthy, and eric cantor, it is difficult to have the discussion necessary to get into the depths of the issues to come up with a sound solution. host: do you want to see new leadership? guest: i am comfortable with the leadership we have. the senate has a diametrically

opposing viewpoint of the house and the white house that is in accord with the senate, a diametrically opposed viewpoint. they have very difficult circumstances. they felt it was more important to work out an arrangement. personally, i would have preferred a solution to the problem. host: veronica, a democrat from slidell, louisiana. caller: i have a question. i would really like to know where all these republicans and tea party and people when the republicans ran up the deficit? they are the ones -- they are the reason we are in this situation dick cheney argued that ragan improved deficits do matter and use that argument to help run up this deficit. host: let's take the last point that deficits do not matter. guest:, to talk about who ran

them up of. you look at the six years in which the white house and congress were controlled by republicans, 2001-2007, they did a poor job. they averaged $300 billion per year in deficits, and part about was the fighting of two wars as a result of 9/11. let's look at what happened since pelosi became the house leader and harry reid became the senate majority leader in the next four years, we averaged $1.20 trillion deficits and then the democrats controlled the white house. they were four times worse than the republicans. yes, the republicans and not do their job, but what does that say about leadership in the house and the senate when they are four times worse than what republicans did? i disagree with both of them. we have to have sound fiscal

management, but there is a huge gap between the two parties. even under the best circumstances, the republicans were not doing as well as they should have. host: a tweet -- guest: we've not been as strong as we need to be. "strong" is a relative term. will we have a balanced budget? what i have seen so far is really a drop in the bucket. but imagine we have politicians that have dogged 1,500 foot hole corresponding to the $1.50 trillion budget deficit and you put the american people inside that pit and you toss them a 22- foot ladder. that does not get you out of a 1,500 foot hole. when you are reducing discretionary spending the relatively speaking it is the same thing and does not fix the

problem. we have to fix the problem before we face governments insolvency and bankruptcy that really would destroy medicare, medicaid, national old fence, and everything important to the american people. host: was it worth the possible default? guest: i disagree with the use of that word. we never would have defaulted. would there have been a delay in payment? absolutely. there was no issue about increasing the debt ceiling, it would be because of the circumstances we were in. we had no choice. the issue was when and how. albany, every obligation of the government during this time would have been paid, albeit in some circumstances delayed, particularly with our creditors. there would have been no default with respect to our creditors. as things stand now, in my judgment, to put ourselves at greater risk of insolvency, to

put up $14.50 trillion in risk of never being paid back, i think we have increased the likelihood that you'll see a drop in our credit rating. host: philip, a republican from kansas. caller: the morning. how are you doing? a couple of points to get my head around the philosophical issue. i grew up as a democrat. i am elapsed democrat and the growth in massachusetts where it is against the law to be a republican. republican. -- i grew up in massachusetts. i read one progressive writer yesterday who said there is good debt. i sort of understand that, but what he did not say was that are dead now approximates about 100% of our gdp. i cannot go down to the bank and say that i take in $60,000 per year and i owe $60,000.

that bank will recommend a therapist to me. listening to the root democratic representative from san diego this morning, they said they want to build up the middle- class. that bothered me. i understand what she is saying, but that is the philosophical divide for me. i appreciate the opportunity to build up myself. i middle-class guy. i'm capable of handling my own affairs. i do not need the government doing all these things for me. but how to resolve this issue? i think the country has moved from a point where there has been independence to a point of massive dependence. how we get ourselves out of that is beyond me. just about everyone is dependent. what does that mean to me as a free man and a loss as a free people? guest: we need to educate people so they have a better understanding of economic principles. there is no free lunch. for something to get something

for free, which voters expect, on the government has to be used in a way to forcibly take that money from someone else, someone who has earned it. when the political system was studied in the 1800's, they figured out it would last only as long as they figured out the kid to take other people's money to give to themselves. i am concerned, as you seem to be, but we're reaching that tipping point. if we do, america will collapse as a country. this is a major fight we have on our hands. and we have to get back to the foundational principles that made america great, the greatest nation the world has seen, but all that is premised on a sacrifice and a sacrifice by our forefathers, people who give their fortune in their lives so their children and grandchildren have a better life than they did. what we're doing right now is the exact opposite. we are sacrificing our children and grandchildren by taking

their money so that we can spend it today and live with on that -- live beyond our means. host: tammy, independent, in tennessee. you're next with congressman brooks. caller: we are close to heinz bill, right next to alabama. are want to thank you for your courage to vote now. we keep hearing about jobs, but i did not know if you know about the doj putting in a lawsuit on alabama who is struggling because of illegal immigration and the devastation and from the tornado. when they talk about jobs why will they not stop illegal immigration and encourage it? they seem to be focusing more on people that break the laws than the people in alabama? what really bothers me is the

same department justice in the obama administration handling guns to the cartels to slaughter innocent babies and mexican families. then they play this game over here like we care. i wish they would care about the american worker. thank you, mr. brooks. guest: may i address the illegal alien issue? she makes a great point. the quickest way to revitalize our economy is to get all of the illegal aliens out of our country. they have broken across our borders, broken our homes. we need to evict them. we need to use every means legally possible. i am very disturbed by the justice department, as administered by this white house. we should be sending states like arizona, alabama, georgia thank- you notes rather than lawsuits. we should send thank-you notes because they decided on their own initiative at their own cost to try and address this illegal alien problem in the face of a

government that has been derelict in its duty to do so. i have co-sponsored over 40 i have co-sponsored over 40 bills to try to deal with the illegal alien problem, but quite frankly, it is a challenge. it will take a different outcome in the 2012 election before we will successfully deal with the illegal alien issue and immediately create 5-10 million jobs. host: democratic caller from granbury, texas. caller: thank you for your no vote. anyone who voted yes should check their moral compass. i would also like to say that all i have heard is "jobs, jobs, jobs" from both sides of the line. how can congress go on vacation of jobs are so important? guest: i cannot answer the vacation part. during my time back in the district, it is something like

7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., six days per week. that is the schedule my staff gives me where i interact with people representing and to make sure i'm understand the issues sure i'm understand the issues better to best represent them while i am in washington, d.c. with respect to jobs, the house representatives have passed a number of initiatives to create jobs. unfortunately they go to this area called the senate to die a silent death. silent death. there are plenty a things that we can do that would help the jobs market. the most important thing is to understand the difference between socialism and free enterprise. for enterprise it made america great, made this a land of opportunity so people could excel if they're willing to work hard, study hard, come up with an idea, do something better, faster, cheaper. socialism, a government job programs, history shows there counterproductive and do not work. we have to work this out in america where the voters decide if we want to continue with

this experiment in socialism, a failed economic model, or the need to go back to the basics to generate jobs, as history has proven? host: cavanaugh, a republican in hickory, n.c.. you are on with congressman mo brooks. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to ask and find out if this does not pass the senate, do you think that we will get their social security, disability checks? i think the lord is really with us in this time of need for everybody. including the congress. i just want to say thank you for what you do, but -- host: the headlines in the papers this morning is that it

is heading to the senate and is likely to have more than the 60 votes necessary and it will be on the president's desk to sign it today. it did not think you have to worry better social security checks at this point. guest: even if we did not do this today, you would still get them in a timely fashion if the president chose to do so. even if we did not raise the debt ceiling, which i think we should because of the economic consequences, we just cannot get out all at once. it would be a starvation diet. there are $2.20 trillion in revenues and social security cost $700 billion, there were be plenty of money for social security. the president would have had to prioritize and say which things would be paid, which would be delayed. i think social security would have been something that would have been paid in a timely fashion including our creditors, about $200 billion, l