immigration process in place in this country that will allow you to come here the right way, get a green card the right way, and apply for jobs just like everybody else. folks do it. do it. and i welcome you. but in this era of unemployment, who are those folks who defend this practice of illegal labor? it's not just the folks who go to work. it's the folks who employ those folks who go to work. this is not about illegal immigrants alone. this is about those businesses that hire those illegal immigrants. a crime is a crime here in this country. they're not all the heartbreaking crimes that my friend from alabama has described, but they are crimes that have consequences. these are not victimless crimes. . the victim could be that

american who can't find a job to support his kids and family. the victim could be that school district that can't afford to sort out how the classes are going to go and can't afford the teachers and has an increasing workload. the victim could be that health care system that can't treat folks deal with the community that it is and the burden keeps growing. it is not a victimless crime. and in terms of finding common ground. i looked to my friend, rob bishop and he has introduced h.r. 1505, the national security and federal lands act. the things that we discuss here in washington, d.c.,, this is one, h.r. 1505, what it does, it changes the law, changes the law

so that border patrol agents can access areas of the border. hear that. there is a bill in this congress to change the law so that border patrol agents can get access to the border. 4.3 million acres of border designated wilderness along our southern board. and in those areas, they can't use motorized vehicles, hear that. hear that. the law of the land in america today is that the border patrol agents cannot patrol the borders. h.r. 1505 will change that and i hope we'll pass that here. and i want to say to my friend from alabama, you and i are both new here and i'm here nine months and learning something

every day. i was a little surprised when the administration came out and said, no, it's not whether or not you are illegal, it's whether or not you are illegal and we make our decisions whether or not to deport you. but what i learned in that conversation is that we have a backlog and talk about funding priorities, for the last nine months i have been focusing on the border patrol and we need more boots on the ground. we also need more bottoms in the seats in immigration courtrooms across this country. we need more immigration judges. all the deportations, what we need is to hire more people to process those deportations and i tell you, you aren't going to find government programs that i

want to spend money on, but the constitution has given to me and you the responsibility of enforcing this part of the law, has given us the responsibility of securing our borders and what it takes to spend more money to hire more immigration court judges to comply with more of the law that is the law of the land, then i'm prepared to do that and i appreciate the administration for educating me in that because i had no idea we were successful in finishing that deportation process. i say, i appreciate his leadership on this issue, i am a proud supporter of the jobs for americans act. i look forward to bipartisan support on that act because again, we aren't talking about anyone to compromise the

principles and asking people to celebrate, to celebrate that we are an immigrant nation and we are a nation of laws. and i tell you, i don't want to live in a nation that is willing to give up on either one of those and we don't have to. i thank my fripped. brooks -- i thank my friend. mr. brooks: i thank my colleagues. i pray that the american people in washington, d.c., will be mindful of the loss of tad the suffering of his family and the sufferings of hundreds if not thousands of other americans under similar if not difficult circumstances all brought about because our federal government is deer electricity in its duty to protect american citizens from the conduct of illegal

aliens. with that, i yield the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garmeppedy is recognized for 60 minutes as the -- garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: thank you for the opportunity to discuss employment or lack of employment here in the united states. we just listened to a discussion about the problem and certainly immigration is a piece of the problem. but in the whole totality of the extraordinary unemployment in the united states, it is but one piece. the solutions to the crisis that faces america and americans is way beyond just the immigration policy. i would hope that my colleagues from the republican side would work towards a comprehensive immigration reform program, one that would deal with the border

and security on the border although i think much of what was said earlier is overblown and dealing with deimportanttations, i would point out that the current obama administration has deported more people in the last year than the entire eight years of the bush administration. much needs to be done. a comens i have administration -- a comprehensive immigration policy needs to be put in place. there is a solution that's at hand. there is an opportunity for this congress to act immediately to bring back american jobs, to put americans back to work. it's the american jobs act. a week ago, a little more than a week ago now, the president stood before a joint session of congress here in this chamber, filled with democrats, republicans, senators and

members of congress, and he presented to us a comprehensive program to put americans back to work. i want to discuss that tonight and also pick up the issue that he raised yesterday about how we do that, how we put americans back to work and in the next several years, bring the deficit under control and put america's financings back in shape. it's the americans' jobs act and one that would actually, not by his estimate, but by the estimate of independent economists employ two million americans immediately. and i would like to tell you how that might come about if this house were to pass the legislation. we know that for america to succeed both in the short-term

and the long-term, it's not only about going back to work, it's about critical investments. over the weekend back in my district in california, the east bay area of san francisco bay and up into the central valley, i had the opportunity to talk to teachers, teachers who were very concerned about given the financial situation in california that they were going to be laid off and generally it's the new, young teacher that is given the pinching slip and september on down the road. this is a personal issue in my family. my daughter and son-in-law are teachers and their class size has grown to 34, 35 in the second grade class, a very difficult teaching situation. yet more layoffs are likely to occur. one of the fundamental investments that needs to be made in any society that wants to grow, that wants to prosper,

that wants to have social justice is the education of the young. and in the case of united states with the extraordinary number of unemployed, some 12 million to 14 million and underemployed, perhaps another 10 million, it's the re-education of those who have been in the work force. so a key investment is education. in the american jobs act, the president has proposed a very strong, vibrant and necessary program to keep teachers in the classroom and to bring teachers back into the classroom. he has proposed that we fund 280,000 teaching positions across this nation. that's a huge number of teachers, many of whom have been laid off and did not arrive for this fall school year. we can put them back into a classroom as soon as the

congress passes the american jobs act. about $35 billion to did this. is it money well spent? if you want to consider investments in the most critical of all the things that a nation does, it's the education of their children. this is an enormously important factor in building the future of america and at the same time putting people back to work. when the teachers go back to work, that sike calls money into the community. the grocery store, the arts store, programs that require books and pamphlets and so forth, all of those things will be circulating into our community. these are things that the president has proposed, the american jobs act, fixing our schools, putting teachers back to work. and that is a critical, critical

investment. i might just put up another way of describing this. if you really care about america, you want to have a better america, and we simply have to invest in america. and there are numerous ways to do it. we talked about the education programs and that is certainly one. this is another one that relates to the education. i don't know if you can see this, but that is a young technician in a laboratory, perhaps in a hospital or in a program, a new business that i saw in davis, california. it's a biotechnology firm that actually produces herb sides and pesticides -- discovered in the environment, these may be bugs, fungus that exist in our virmente that kill bugs or kill

unwanted plants. they are discovering these and understanding the chemical and biological nature of it, and then mass-producing these biological pesticides. two things they need. they will go out with an i.p.o., so they'll need capital and that is another piece what the president is proposing, but they need technicians in laboratory, in going lieu this particular lab, the owner of it said, i said how is your employment? 90% employment and we need to grow, but i can't find the technicians. in the president's program, there is a specific re-education program that is available for young men and older men and women that want to learn a new technology, a new trade, and that's the technicians here so

they can fill the four immediate openings that exist in davis, california, for lab technicians. the community colleges will be able to seff the pell grants and grants and loans for the first time ever to provide money so these people can go to work. there is one other program, and we'll get to the construction in a little while as we go through this. . let me take a break for a moment and yield to my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 405, resolution providing for considering of the senate amendment to the bill h r. 2608 to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 406, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2401, to requireage cease of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the environmental protection agency and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from california may proceed. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much. it's always a privilege to yield to the rule committees

and the good work they do. let me continue on here for a moment. i want to pick up the last issue that i talked about, which was lab technicians, retraining men and women, one of the key aspects of the president's jobs program is the fact that we have about three, about four million men and women who have served in the iraq and afghanistan theaters. many of those are still there but most have come home. when they leave the military, they have one of the highest unemployment rates of any group in the united states. this is simply wrong. these are men and women who have served this nation heroically and in considerable danger and in many, many cases having suffered grievous injuries. we need to pay special attention to them and recognize that they have acquired some

very, very important skills. they know how to work, how to show up on time, how to take instructions. what they don't know is how to be a lab technician and don't know that there are job opportunities out there the president proposed a special program to encourage american employers, for example, the biotech firm i discussed earlier to reach out to veterans. there is a $5,600 tax credit. this is not a deduction. this is right off the bottom line taxes. $5,600 for any company that has less than $50 million of payroll to hire a veteran returning from the wars. incredibly important and the right thing for america to do. the other thing, and this is even, i think, more -- well, just as important and perhaps more important this $9,600 tax credit, again, this is a

reduction in an employer's taxes of $9,600 for each wounded veteran, disabled veteran, that has returned from the wars. we only need to look at the photos that are too often in our newspapers about post-traumatic stress syndrome, about the men and women who have suffered grievous injuries of one sort or another. if an employer is willing to reach out, they will be able to receive a $9,600 tax credit for those wounded warriors. these are america's heroes. these are the men and women that should be first in our thoughts and first in line. this can be combined with the educational programs that i discussed earlier so that as the vet raps come back, they have the opportunity to learn a new skill, perhaps a lab technician, and carry on and work through with a good career ahead of them that has enormous

upside potential. once you're in the high tech businesses, and the lab tech is there, the opportunity to go on and get additional education and pay and benefits is clearly before you. this is one of the other aspects of the american jobs act. good for employers. they need an employee they can deduct off their tacks, $5,600 by hiring a veteran or $9,600 for hiring a disabled veteran. very good, very, very solid program in the american jobs act. it doesn't stop there. let me bring up one other item i think we should really be focusing on. where did it go. here it is. i said earlier i'd come back to this issue of the construction worker over here. the unemployment in construction is probably well over 30%. in some parts, i know this is in california, it's in the range of 50%.

so the men and women that are in the construction industry have suffered enormous unemployment in part because of the housing market in part because of the cutback in state and local government expenditures. but in the president's american jobs act, there is a critical investment for this nation and that is the investment in the infrastructure, a big word, most of us now know it, infrastructure are roads, airports, water systems, sanitation systems, an even the modern communications systems of not telecommuting but various microwave systems and other fiberoptic systems. all of those are modern infrastructures, now across america, we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate. our bridges are in bad shape. more than 60% of the bridges in america need to be repaired and

made stronger. there are earthquake standards that are not met. virginia wasn't thinking too much about those until about a month ago and then suddenly virginia began to think about earthquake standards and i will tell you in this building, this capitol was built a century or more ago and they weren't thinking about earthquakes at that time. but all across this nation, the infrastructure needs to be modernized, needs to be brought back up to speed. the president has proposed a $50 billion sum of money immediately available for the infrastructure of the nation. bridges, roads, airports, the infrastructure of the modern communication systems. all of that is immediately available and noigs that, a very innovative and i think very important idea called an infrastructure bank. infrastructure bank has been talked about for a long time. europe has had one for more than two decades.

and what it is is an initial investment by the government and then additional investment by public pension funds, by individuals, and that infrastructure bank operates just as a commercial bank does. not a bunch of pork barrel projects by me or my colleagues here but rather projects that are bought, cash flow, they are able to repay the loans, repay loan guarantees and perhaps depending upon the structure of the proposal, a grant of some sort. that could turn into another $50 billion very, very quickly. i know out in california, calipers, the big public pension fund, has said they'll commit delrls00 million to -- $800 million to infrastructure in the state of california. with the infrastructure in place as the president proposed they may put in $2 billion or

more. in this house, my colleague from connecticut, rosa delauro has pushed the infrastructure bank for several years. gotten no traction from our republican friends. at the same time, several republicans have signed on to the infrastructure bill. we have a bipartisan and bicameral, the senate has a similar bill on that side. this is something we can do immediately. this is not new science. this is not a new program. it's a program that's been around a long time, not yet in law, but it has been fully vetted and it can happen very quickly as soon as the american jobs act is passed. if that happens, we'll be looking at at least $50 billion for infrastructure projects and quite possibly much more than that if the infrastructure bank comes along. let me take up one other aspect of this program.

and i think i'll take it up later and just tell you what it is. there is in the -- not a community in america that has all of their public schools as neat, as well painted, and as well conditioned as a community would want. in fact, many of our communities, our schools are an embarrassment they are run down, the paint is chipping off the wall the playgrounds in disarray, the toilets don't work the lab is a 1950 laboratory, no internet communications within the school, the president has proposed about a $25 billion to $30 billion program to renovate america's schools. to take those schools that are run down, whether they are in rural areas or urban areas, schools that are run down, schools that are in need of

rehabilitation, remodeling and upgrading would be in line. it's calculated there are 35,000 schools that could benefit from this program. now, who is going to do the work? these are new jobs. these are new job opportunities. and much of this work is not of a very high skill, but rather a skill that can be met by many of the unemployed. this is cleanup, it's painting, it's the other kinds of work that may not require the highest of skill levels. but that is one of the additional programs that's available and a key intrastructure program. so as we go through these various elements the president has proposed in the american jobs act, we will find the opportunity to put americans back to work. i noticed that my colleague from new york has joined us and we'll begin once again, the east coast-west coast.

i talked about the education program, the veterans' programs the president has proposed and gotten into the infrastructure. we have yet to hit the unemployment and other areas but take us wherever you want, congressman paul tonko from the state of no, the birth place of the industrial revolution. we haven't talked about making it in america yet, which is one of your favorite things so please share your thoughts. mr. tonko: representative garamendi, thank you for once again leading us in a thoughtful hour of discussion, about deciphering the facts out there that will spring board the comeback they are economic recovery of this nation. it must be done with the deepest and most profound sense of academics. and the american public is counting on congress to work

with the president to make job nrs abundant in our society. you talk about skills and the development of skills. recently, during our district work period, i traveled in my district and saw the benefits of the investment of automation in manufacturing. and i was reminded by wayne kents of kents plastics, that it's important for us to develop the skills that are required today in manufacturing. now he's involved with a cat center, center for advanced technology, in the capital region, worked with r.p.i. and other stewings and with the private sector in that come pagget that really puts together the vision and the need, expresses the need for manufacturing. now there are those who would suggest that manufacturing is dead. we've seen our hayday it's over, it's history. well when you talk to america's

manufacturers, they will tell you that they need to develop the human infrastructure they need today's skills to meet today's competition, they will tell you about doing it smarter, so as to be that sharpest competitor on the global scene, and they will talk about innovation and just how does innovation happen. it's taking ideas and moving them along, investing in r&d, building a prototype, developing that impact in manufacturing and making certain that we are at the cutting edge, that we're investing with america's brainpower, its know-how. pulling together the intellectual capacity and making it work. but when we introduce innovation, we need people with the skill set to run these automated mechanisms in the manufacturing line. and so it is absolutely essential, so vitally important, to develop the skill

set, the know how, in order to put people to work and make us competitive. it's happening as we speak. mr. kents advised me that across this country from my end of the country to your end, representative garamendi, we need skilled labor of the newest kind and i can tell you there are many people who have been displaced from the work force, through no fault of their own, their job may have been shipped offshore, they have high work ethic, they have tremendous skill, but now it needs to be honed into present-day applications, train, retraining, enabling us to advance innovation, advance manufacturing, these are important aspects to the work that needs to be done. and in the make it in america efforts, where we enable people to dream the american dream, where we cultivate that climate, where you can tether to the american dream, we can introduce a source of -- the

sort of policies it takes to advance make it in america and the president has done that with his american jobs act, we as democrats in the house of representatives have made it our mantra, over and over again, stating, make it in america. . it takes on a variation of meaning. make it in america, produce it in america, make it in america, survive and grow in america. there is also making it in america and america themes that are interpreted through that statement and it does incorporate sound trade policies and incorporates investments that provides the tax initiatives that will enable people to be strong. and takes that ingredient and gives us the opportunity to be innovative, which could shave tremendous amount of price off the final product, labor,

investing in the human infrastructure, education from pre-k to advanced degrees, we need to invest in higher education and research. without ideas and inspiring that sort of genius that comes up with clever concepts, we are no whereas a society. the infrastructure, putting together the sort of efforts that will enable us at home to ship our products to have the infrastructure not only of the type and invest in a grid system that enables us to reach through the distribution networking, making certain it is state of the art, we saw what happened in august of 2003 when a failure in ohio put out the lights in new

york city and impacted my district. these are the motivating disciplines within our efforts to enable us to boldly state it and make it in america initiative, make it happen, and working hard and proud of the efforts made by the white house. it's a plan and vision and laser-sharp inputting people back to work. restoring the dignity of work. gathering around the dinner table at home and valuable having people bringing home the pay check. forcing millions of americans. they shouldn't wait 14 months to get something done. i'm happy to join you on the floor of the house of representatives and thank you for the leadership that you exert on this issue. mr. garamendi: you, mr. tonko

and you have been here night after night in the make it in america theme. a trade policy that positions america to once again to be the manufacturer for the world. tax policy -- we have done a lot of tax policy. one last year, none of our republican colleagues were with us, but the democrats had the majority, we eliminated $12 billion of tax breaks that american corporations that received, our tax money was given to those american corporations for shipping jobs offshore. what? you mean they got a subsidy for shipping jobs offshore? they did. those are the tax policies we are talking about. the president has proposed a continuation of another tax policy we put in place last year and wants to continuity and that

is, to give a business the opportunity to expense in one year, in one year, the cost of capital equipment. so that it's not depreciated over seven years. that is an enormous advantage for a business to make the capital investment. there is one thing i would add to it. the president said but it wasn't specific, but the capital equipment, that welding machine, that saw, whatever it happens to be or the tractor out in the farm areas, that that be an american-made piece of equipment, that the equipment be made in america. once again, we are using our tax money to subsidize the capital equipment. when i want my tax money to be used for american-made equipment. and guess what? i have a piece of legislation --

i got so excited. you'll have to forgive me. i have a piece of legislation that does just that. it couples what the president has been talking about. he talked about we buy american. h.r. 613 says for that strarbg, highways, high-speed rail, trains and transit, be made in america. this is opportunities for america. and it works, it works. mr. tonko: let me share a perspective with you and we'll share it for those who are viewing the discussion here this evening on the house floor. my district has been severely impacted by the ravages of the waters of irreen and trop -- irene and tropical storm lee. certainly in pennsylvania and in

massachusetts and vermont and in con cult, to name a -- connecticut, to name a few. but if you ever you wanted to see a snapshot of change where people were disconnected from their neighborhood, farmers who had to pour milk into the ravaging waters because they had no connection to the outside world, roads wiped away, bridges discontinued, rail systems knocked out, rails stopped until they could reconstruct that rail line, that pointed out with such significant measure in bold terms the value of infrastructure. this screeching halt to a regional economy came about from the forces of mother nature and just brought into clear vision

for me just what this infrastructure debate is about and how folks can igthor the value of infrastructure -- ignore the value of infrastructure on this house floor and do political games on an idea that really talks about shipping freight across this country, shipping the essential materials for our manufacturing lines across this country. infrastructure is that major artery and major lifeblood that enables the economic comeback to truly be that noble, bold approach, infrastructure and to put together in the american jobs act an infrastructure bank bill that allows to place $10 billion that will leverage $100 billion that enables all sorts of constructs to occur and puts

together a working plan for america's skilled labor is a powerful expression of job creation, job retention. it's what really is the pulse of america. it is that heartbeat of activity through our roads and bridges and rail systems and airports that really tells the true story. mr. garamendi: we can rebuild america. and we are going to have to rebuild your part of america. you and your constituents in upper new york and in vermont, were devastated by hurricane irene. floods that had not been seen perhaps in the entire modern history of those areas. so that needs to be rebuilt, but are correct about the rest of the nation. san francisco bay bridge went down in the 1989 earthquake and devastated the economy of san

francisco. freeways collapsed. we know we need to build to a higher standard and repair. these are american jobs that are readily available today and when we couple it with american-produced cement and steel and equipment that is american-made, we will generate a new resurgence of america's manufacturing industry. it can be done. all we need is a vote of this house. all we need is a vote -- on the president's american jobs act. it's all there. make it america is there. the construction jobs are there. the education is there. two million americans going back to work, the day after the president signs that bill. and to sit here and waste time, it seems to be a tragedy.

we need help in vermont and need help in new york. they have been devastated and that bill hasn't been passed this house to provide the money for it. we have to do it. it's up to us. mr. tonko: it highlights the concern that many of us have in terms of the response to what is pretty much rendered areas of our country to be acknowledged almost as a war-torn area where craters have been created by the force of water, roads are no longer in play, where businesses have been shut down, where homes have been lott -- lost to the waters. and when you look at that devastation, you would think that the first thing we would do

is respond quickly and with the depth of acknowledgement that properties resources to get things going again. our farmers need assistance and not getting it through the response here with the concurrent resolution. it's a trade, almost, that we are asked to make about offsets we can find. these are people that are looking for their children's school clothes in the rubbles. they are searching for pictures of grandparents to have something to which to cling to in the aftermath of that devastation and wonder if they'll open their business again and we aren't responding fully and looking for ways to cut so as to slide dollars over. are you going to cut that youngster who has no home, are you going to cut her education,

cut his health care and disavow any need for public safety? these are the efforts -- these are the challenges that when america reviews the process, it gets cynical and i understand the sin sism. and it is about stepping up and showing america what effective government is all about. and when they hear about the expression of offsets, i know people in the district, they are like an extended family and representing them and i know that their philosophy may not be my political philosophy but angered about political offsets to look for new homes, clothing and food and angry to hear about the total disavowing of ag assistance and rebuild their fields, clear it of debris and

create the watershed aareas, and these are urgent measures and they aren't going to be tolerating political gameman ships. >> mr. garamendi: i was a insurance commissioner in california and we had many emergencies in california, fires, earthquakes and always, we could count on the federal government immediately providing assistance. sometimes fast, hundreds of millions of dollars made immediately available to rebuild and it was never, never a question of having to take money away from an existing program so that aid could be brought to california. when the hurricane went through new orleans, nobody said, well, we are going to take care of new

orleans and cut education or resources. they put the money together during the bush period, to rebuild new orleans and that was a multibillion dollar project. here we are with those disasters in the northeast and our republican colleagues are demanding an offset and in order to provide money to rebuild the northeast, we have to cut out the research for advanced auto technology. this is the future of the american auto industry. this is how to build a better electric motor for a car and make those things in america rather than importing from china, korea and japan. the opportunity to advance with more fuel-efficient cars. all of that will be pushed aside for the first time in anybody's memory here and never before was an offset required, particularly

one that would harm the future of the automobile industry. this doesn't make any sense. let the compassion and the general rossity of america express itself as it has done so many, many times instead of appropriating the money. we'll rebuild and in rebuilding, much of it will be made in america. mr. tonko: and that's where i can acknowledge that my district, regardless of political persuasion, people have been impacted by those statements. they are tiing to process that sort of thinking that would just call to a grinding halt any response that is going to be sufficient simply because it's ruled by some sort of new restrictive qualities. well, these are people in pain. these are people who are hurting. through no fault of their own.

they've been impacted by the forces of mother nature and we have seen it, as you have rightfully said from coast to coast. there have been tragedies out there, disasters and challenges galore through the ages of our history. and we have always responded in that american pioneer sort of way, to be there, roll in the assistance and take care of it, when one amongst us hurts, we feel everyone's pain. this is really tragic. it then challenges our bigger picture here. if we can't be responsive in miamis like that, how do you convince some in the house that the urgency to invest in an innovation economy, to invest in a global race on clean energy and innovation, how do you encourage them to understand the urgency of that moment? because if we're just living for the moment and not looking

forward, if we don't have the vision, as is suggested, we shall perish, that is just what we need right now. we won the global race on space because with passionate resolve, we determined that we were going to land a person on the moon before any other nation. and we did it. and we unleashed untold levels of technology that impacted every sector of the economy and every dynamic that defines our quality of life, from health care to communications to energy generation to education and beyond. all of that was impacted by the pioneer spirit of the global race on space. we're at that same sort of defining moment. are we going to shine? is this going to be a shining moment for america? are we going to allow the challenge to pass us by? is that american in spirit? i would suggest not. and the moment, today, requires

the sort of belief in our nation's ability and the leadership that should be expressed in the halls of government here in washington, is scienced by that sort of thinking. and so we can, we must, we need to go forward with the soundness of investment in an innovation economy. when we talk about growing jobs and investing in the american worker, think of it, the linchpin to energy independence, battery manufacturing, advanced battery manufacturing, i see it happening in my district but it started with r&d, it starts with an investment of ideas and moving them along and building the prototype. you know you mentioned earlier that my district is the host, was the host territory to the industrial revolution. that didn't just happen. there were people with boldness that said, let's create a port called new york city and let it

connect the great ocean to the great lakes. and because of my location, my geography, upstate new york became that lake to a great ocean, to the great lakes. and it inspired the birth of a necklace of communities called milltowns that rose to be the epicenters of investment and innovation. that pioneer spirit is alive today in my state, in your state, in the 48 other states. we should be proud of that. we should nurture it. we should make certain it speaks force pli to job creation. that's the plan of the president, american job act, and it's the vision of make it in america that you and i so often speak to during these special orders on the house floor. mr. garamendi: we can. yes, we can. we can rebuild america. you gave a wonderful example of the way in which the great industrial revolution in this country took place. government doing its piece and

the private sector doing that piece. government setting the stage with infrastructure and the private sector coming along, building the milltowns and the factories and the government aiding in the research along the way. there's an interesting story about the telegraph. would not have happened had not that idea been brought to the congress and then the congress funding the initial implementation of the telegraph. so we've seen over the history of america the role of government and the president has laid out in the american jobs act a very powerful message about the role of government together with the fre enterprise entrepreneurial system, building once again the america that we want. i want to take this, we've got maybe another 15 minutes here, i think, i want to take this to another part of what the person talked about -- of what the president talked about yesterday. there is two americas.

we are two very different americas. there is the very wealthy america, and then there is the rest of america. i put this up because i was listening, as i was traveling to one of my meetings in the district over the weekend to a radio talk show. it was k.g.o. radio in san francisco and they had a talk show on in support of food banks. they were taking the entire day and assisting in raising money. this is one of the most listened to stations on the entire west coast. they go from vancouver down to san diego with their radio signal. and it was a whole day dedicated to food banks and raising money for food banks. the story line was very simple. food banks are being inundated by men and women that can no

longer buy food, they are unemployed, they are simply to a point where they cannot any longer and the stories were heart wrenching. men and women, families that -- men that had -- and women -- that had worked their entire life, that had always been able to come home with food and a paycheck and be able to pay the rent or pay the mortgage but had lost their job and they didn't know what to do. and they were embarrassed. to go to the foodback. they thought it was begging. that's not the case. but nonetheless the storieser to me the --er to me apart and caused me to come back and find out about child poverty. child poverty in this nation. the richest nation in the world . no other nation, no matter what you think of china, no matter what you think about india and how they have grown or any part of the european union, no other nation in the world has thewell of america.

and no other industrialized country in the world has the same extraordinary child poverty. what are we? what are we in america if we don't care for our children? look at this. nearly 25%, somewhere, 23%, 24%, one in four children in this nation, live in poverty. and they're hungry. they are hungry. this has to be addressed. and the president's jobs program puts men and women back to work so that they can care for their children. there's another story behind this. and that is that the rate of poverty in america is the highest it has been since 1962. during the johnson period, 1963, 1964, 1965, excuse me,

that was the kennedy period, but in the johnson period, america started a war on poverty. and the poverty rate in this nation fell precipitously. senior poverty with medicare, medicaid, men and women in their senior years taken out of poverty because they could afford health care. they had health care available to them. and other programs were institutionalized. here we are. 40-something years later, the highest incident of poverty in america since prior to the war on poverty in the 1960's. we have to address this. mr. tonko: representative garamendi, it's often said that a nation can be measured by the work it does for those in their dawn of life, and the quality of life for those children living in poverty understandably is reduced.

and so, the challenge to all of us in this country, what ought to move that moral compass of america, is the reflection on that statement that you just made. if we're content with that statistic, if we're content with the direction in which that statistic is moving, then it is a puzzling statement. it ought to haunt us as a society. and as we weaken and as we grow more and more into the ranks of poverty, the entire nation, all income strata, are challenged by that. we're all weakened by that statistic. because as we empower each and every american, we as a nation collectively grow stronger. and the impact is not only just living in poverty, it's more

incidence of disease, problems with health care, poorer education, we need to strengthen the homes and you don't do it with policies that obviously have created this growing divide, and that gap is growing between the comfortable and uncomfortable, and it's why there has to be this revisitation, you will, of tax policy. now there are those who say if you address this, it's class warfare. it's not class warfare. if everything were at its even level and you adjusted it, you could call it class warfare. this is an exercise in justice. social and economic justice. and it also can be argued that if we had those higher tax rates, and we had an economic -- a series of years of economic growth in the clinton

years, then how do you rationalize the tax rates having been higher back then? it certainly could be argued that it didn't ward off economic growth, economic strengthening of our -- of our nation. so there is a call here, a clarion call, a wakeup call to have it policy that will undo this social and economic injustice. it hurts all of us. and it can't continue. i know that in the stat you shared, there's another one, another statistic, that's troublesome. we have dropped below $50,000 as the median household income. i believe we're in the range of $48,000 to $49,000. maybe perhaps just slightly more than $49,000. that is troublesome as that median continues to dip. that is a hurtful

acknowledgment that there are failed policies out there that need to be turned around. mr. garamendi: let me put a couple more facts on the table then let's talk about the policy changes that can redirect that. this is the last 40 years, 1979 to 2006. 2006, prior to the great recession, during that period of time, there was a shift of wealth and of income. wealth and of income. from the middle class and the low income to the very wealthy. this lays it out. again, this is prior to the great recession system of we look at it, the grea recession, these stratistics are even more starting. -- startling. for the lowest, the poorest, 11% growth, then you move up, the sec group, 18%, 21%, 32%,

for the top percentage the top 20%, 256% increase in income and wealth you look at the statistics a wage earner in a factory versus the c.e.o. used to be 1-40, now it's 1-300. you've seen an enormous shift in wealth from the working middle class families to the very, very wealthy. now if you overlay this with the 2007, 2008, 2009, and where we are today in 2011, it would be even more startling because now this is running negative. mr. tonko: right. mr. garamendi: these are running negative, as you said a minute ago, for the middle class, that's here and down, not the top 20%, but down here. this is the top 1%. mr. tonko: so prerecession, creating 32% at the best,

anywhere from 11% to 32% growth versus 256% growth for that top 1%. perched at the top of the economic ladder, the income strata. mr. garamendi: donald strump is the example here but there's probably 400,000 to 500,000 that fall into that this category, extraordinary wealth. now, we've been talking all night about the american jobs act. so i'm going to put this back up for us to ponder for a moment. the american jobs act. total cost, toecal cost of the american jobs act, $450 million. the president yesterday said it can be paid for. and he laid out a way to pay for it and simultaneously over the next decade bring down the american deficit, solve the

deficit and pay for the jobs act. and he said that there are three ways to do it. first those who have much must participate, they must share in bringing america back. and so he suggested that the highest income, that 1%, those who make over $1 million, that they participate, that they no longer would be able to have a tax rate lower than their assistants. that's the buffett rule. that's a big piece of it, about $800 billion over the next decade. he also said that corporations that pay no income tax today, corporations like general motors, corporations like verizon, some of america's biggest corporations pay zero income tax and last year general electric paid zero and got about $5 billion back in

rebates. something is seriously wrong, the president said, that cannot happen anymore. everybody has to participate. he also said that other tax breaks for the oil companies should end. so putting together these tax increases on those who have much, the super wealthy in america, the hedge fund manager that pays 15% on his income where you and i and others may pay 30%. something's wrong here. so that's what he's recommending. we need to move very vigorously forward on the american jobs act, put people back to work, and simultaneously solve the overall budget deficit by not only new taxes but also with additional cuts. that's the president's proposal. mr. tonko: and i would add to that the jobs piece is so significant because we can talk about tax reform but unless you have a job and an income then it renders itself somewhat

meaningless. and i would also add, representative garamendi, the concern that adds more and proper -- that as more and more pressure has befallen the 50 states, we've seen sut cutlers to programs and -- we've seen cuts to programs and these services don't go away. the service comes down to the local level with property tax payments that are now snuffing out the american dream for the middle class. so not only is the tax policy suffocating for middle class americans, but the countereffect of property taxes growing in order to continue services means that more and more pressure, income tax, property tax pressure, school tax pressure is befalling the middle class. when people want to walk away from this agenda to make progressive reforms to policy, tax policy, it scares me because this is our moment, our tipping point, to turn things around. i know that you want to close, i thank you for the outstanding

leadership in bringing us together, representative garamendi. it is always a pleasure to join with you. we'll continue to forcefully speak the reforms we need. mr. garamendi: these will continue and the make it in america agenda will be the american agenda because americans want to make things in this country. they want to rebuild the manufacturing industry, the president has given us a way to do that with the american jobs act. trade policy, tax policy, energy, labor, make it in america. make the jobs in america. rebuild america's manufacturing base, rebuild the american middle class. we will do it. and if we pass the american jobs act it can happen very quickly. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from new york have a motion? do you have a motion, the gentleman from new york? mr. tonko: madam speaker, i move that the house adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning more -- for morning >> later this week, recommendations on on which regulations to eliminate. the head of the afghan peace

council was killed in an attack in his home by a suicide bomber. we will get a reaction by president karzai and president obama, who were at the united nations today. then a discussion on the future of libya. after that a briefing from the pentagon on the repeal of the don't ask don't tell policy. later, a hearing on federal debt and the u.s. economy. >> we in jennings bryan, one of the best known speakers of his time, ran for president three times and lost, but changed political history. he eased one of the man the featured in "the contenders." friday at 8:00 eastern. learn more about the series at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> a former president of

afghanistan was killed in kabul. burhanuddin rabbani was killed. we will hear remarks from president karzai and president obama. >> i want to welcome president karzai. we have a lot of important business to do, and i very much appreciate the effort he has been making in rebuilding afghanistan and putting it on a transition path to make sure that afghans are ultimately responsible for their security, their prosperity. we received tragic news today that president rabbani, who had

been heading up the reconciliation process, was killed in a suicide attack. he was a man who cared deeply about afghanistan and had been a valued adviser to president karzai. he made enormous contributions to rebuilding, so his tragic loss, we want to extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and to the people of afghanistan. mr. president, we both believe that despite this, we will not be deterred from creating a path to whereby afghans can live in freedom and safety and security and prosperity. it will be important to continue the effort to bring all efforts -- all aspects of afghan society -- so we very much appreciate your presence here today. we wanted to give you the

opportunity to speak. >> thank you very much, mr. preston. -- mr. president. [unintelligible] the chairman of the afghan council, the former afghan president, and an afghan present -- patriot who as we see has sacrificed his life for the sake of afghanistan. the mission he had undertaken was important for the afghan people and for the security and peace of our country. we will miss him very, very much. [unintelligible] he was among the few people of afghanistan with the nction --shed -- distinguis

but this will not deter us from -- and weast will succeed. thank you, mr. president, -- [unintelligible] >> thank you, everyone. >> now we will take you to a discussion on the future of libya. we will hear from ban ki-moon and the president of the trans

national council on libya. >> distinguished heads of state and government, mr. jalil, president of the transitional council of libya, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in this important meeting. for libya, this is a historic day. last friday, the general assembly of the united nations overwhelmingly voted to accept the credentials of the new libyan leadership. today we are honored to formally recommend them into the

international community and to the first major meeting at the united nations. president jalil, i am sure you saw your new flag this morning flying proudly outside this building. i am pleased to note -- is in this room as well. you and the people of libya, we offer our congratulations and best wishes for the future. for the past seven months, you have fought courageously for your fundamental rights and freedoms. women and young people were in the vanguard in the political and social and economic life of the country. as you look to the future, i want you to know that the united nations will support you in every way we can.

excellencies, the security council and several regional organizations met the challenge with the speed and decisive action to protect the libyan people from violence. today we must once again respond with such speed and decisive action. this time, to consolidate peace democracy. last friday, the security council authorized the establishment of the united nations mission in libya. this effort must be well coordinated, coherent, and comprehensive. it must be fully consistent with libyan needs, parties, and the libyan context. traditional -- the transitional

council has outlined the needs in these areas. constitutional reform, public security, human rights, rule of law, equality, reconciliation, construction, and economic recovery. my new special representative and his team are already deploying. meanwhile, u.n. humanitarian engineers have been on the ground for several weeks, at distributing food and medical aid and assisting libyan authorities to deal with critical threats to the country 's applies. needless to say, the challenges are large. the first priority must be peace and security. fighting continues in some parts of the country. elsewhere, however, we are

encouraged that so many libyans from so many communities have laid down their arms and are working together. we urge those that have not done so to join them. we can also be very encouraged by the able leadership demonstrated so far by president jalil and many others. they have embraced the central principles, the principles of tolerance, moderation, reconciliation, human rights, and rule of law, and in particular, the rights of women and migrant workers. these are the foundation stones of any modern democratic society. if they -- then other workers can proceed smoothly -- and

restoring public services, creating new institutions of government and enduring law and order. excellencies, distinguished heads of state of government, ladies and gentleman, let me close once again with our congratulations and best wishes for the new libya. your country has great potential. it's industrious and resilience people, its resources and strategic location -- enormous efforts of the happiness and prosperity of the libyan people. we look forward to working closely with you and i think you very much. and i thank you very much for your leadership and your efforts for establishing the peace and civil rights of libya. i now give the floor to his excellency mr. jalil, president councilransitional

of libya as i look forward to the chair and the needs of the libyan people. you have the floor. >> in the name of god, compassionate and merciful,,ban ki-moon, secretary general of the united nations, excellencies, president of state and government, ladies and gentleman, peace be upon you all. first i would like to extend my thanks to the united nations and to the international community as well as the league of arab states, the african union, the european union, and the united states of america, who is

hosting this meeting today under the auspices of the united nations, for all the efforts to have all deployed for the success of the libyan revolution, with which the people look forward to peace and security in our region. i would also like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to his excellency the secretary general for this generous in mission of fighting -- generous initiative of inviting us to this meeting which he called for, and i would like to thank all states that have supported us in our crisis, for most of which qatar, the united aram m. terrance, lebanon, and jordan, and lebanon, which has endorsed the famous resolution. we would also like to thank the united states of america, united

kingdom, france, italy, turkey, and all members of the alliance and those whose names i have not mentioned, i would like to apologize to them, but extend to them all the critics and thinks of the libyan people for all the political, economic, and military support that you have given us, without which we would not have been able to achieve victory face of such a huge amount of weaponry with which gaddafi used against his people. yet night did nations has played a huge role in the -- the united nations has played a huge role in the history of libya. when the 17th of february revolution began, the united nations once again took its responsibility in outline accord responsibility of protecting civilians and freezing of assets to the two

famous resolutions through which all necessary measures were taken to provide the protection for the civilians. which in part has enabled us to achieve the first part of our victory, since gaddafi is still in libya and still possesses some resources that represent a threat, not only to libyans, but to the international community as a whole. your excellency, the secretary general, ladies and gentlemen, the libyan people have taken great pride in liberating its territories and in realizing its aspirations for which it rose up on the 17th of february. the road before us is still long, and there are many challenges at many levels in the

short and long term, either because of the presence of gaddafi or because of challenges related to launching the developmental process to rebuild and reconstruct the state. our needs are many. we have lost 25,000 marchers. there are double those numbers of wounded. there are many needs and requirements that necessitate extreme priority right away. events to which the country has gone through over the last three months and the liberation of tripoli got stability and security have spread over in a manner that proved that the libyan people bore its responsibility. the country, particularly the

tripoli, have not witnessed in the act of retaliation accept within a very small limits, and the perpetrators of such retaliatory actions did not generally have the same nationalistic spirit of the entire of libyan people. ntc has pledged to stand up to such retaliatory acts and to punish their perpetrators. the libyan people have positively responded to the cost of the ntc this regard, and none of the former government -- for officials of the gaddafi government have been exposed to any -- many of them had been arrested and are secure and have been ordered to stay at their homes or they are held at certain locations. some have been released after

preliminary investigations proved that they did not commit any illegal actions. the libyan authorities will bring to justice all accused of the gaddafi regime in a just trial and we will work for the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation over the coming period. we have already established committees for that purpose that have traveled to different parts of libya to start a process of reconciliation that will include all the elements of the libyan people after total liberation is realized, and we intend to seek support from the international community in this regard. mr. secretary general, made his and settlement, we believe the real victory of our revolution cannot be represented by the simple act of are arresting some officials or taking retaliatory actions against them. rather, through establishing the

basic principles of our just islamic religion, the spirit of forgiveness, tolerance, and coexistence, and all human values to which we devote ourselves for the good of the entire people and for the proper protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. we would like to assure everyone that all migrants come out all foreigners living in libya will be dealt with in accordance with international law, which international humanitarian law, and we will only take measures to put an end to the flow of illegal workers, no more, no less. in conclusion, i would like to state that although we are a rich country, we require

assistance, more pleased to be treated as all other members of the united nations. we have greatly contributed to many human that syrian organizations over the years -- humanitarian organizations over the years, and the time has come for us to expect such assistance from the united nations. far from the frozen assets of libya, since this is their right of the libyan people to receive such assistance from the international organizations, i would also like to reassure everyone that libya will be a vital stake, a vibrant state of polls the principles of security and peace in the region, a state that respects human rights and establishes a nation in which libyans can govern themselves and seek official position

through elections. libya also reassures everyone that we will protect civilians always. we thank you very much for your support. we thank you for holding this important meeting. we agree to all those countries that have supported in our crisis a support that the libyan people will forever remember. peace be upon you all. >> i thank president jalil for his statement. he has provided clarity and the foundation upon which we shall anchor our support and assistance to libya in rebuilding the country and coordinating international efforts. for our part, let me again reassure him and his people that

the united nations is a fully -- is fully ready and capable of coordinating our international efforts. excellencies, i now give the floor to the president of the united states, his excellency, are obama. you have the floor. >> good morning. mr. secretary general, on behalf of us all, thank you for convening this meeting to address a task that must be the work of all of us -- supporting the people of libya as they build a future that is free and democratic and prosperous. and i want to thank president jalil for his remarks and for all that he and prime minister jibril have done to help libya reach this moment. to all the heads of state, to all the countries represented here who have done so much over

the past several months to ensure this day could come, i want to say thank you, as well. today, the libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation. after four decades of darkness, they can walk the streets, free from a tyrant. they are making their voices heard -- in new newspapers, and on radio and television, in public squares, and on personal blogs. they're launching political parties and civil groups to shape their own destiny and secure their universal rights. and here at the united nations, the new flag of a free libya now flies among the community of nations. make no mistake -- credit for the liberation of libya belongs to the people of libya. it was libyan men and women -- and children -- who took to the streets in peaceful protest, who faced down the tanks and

endured the snipers' bullets. it was libyan fighters, often outgunned and outnumbered, who fought pitched battles, town by town, block by block. it was libyan activists -- in the underground, in chat rooms, in mosques -- who kept a revolution alive, even after some of the world had given up hope. it was libyan women and girls who hung flags and smuggled weapons to the front. it was libyans from countries around the world, including my own, who rushed home to help, even though they, too, risked brutality and death. it was libyan blood that was spilled and libya's sons and daughters who gave their lives. and on that august day -- after all that sacrifice, after 42 long years -- it was libyans who pushed their dictator from power. at the same time, libya is a

lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one. i said at the beginning of this process, we cannot and should not intervene every time there is an injustice in the world. yet it's also true that there are times where the world could have and should have summoned the will to prevent the killing of innocents on a horrific scale. and we are forever haunted by the atrocities that we did not prevent, and the lives that we did not save. but this time was different. this time, we, through the united nations, found the courage and the collective will to act. when the old regime unleashed a campaign of terror, threatening to roll back the democratic tide sweeping the region, we acted as united nations, and we acted swiftly -- broadening sanctions, imposing an arms

embargo. the united states led the effort to pass a historic resolution at the security council authorizing all necessary measures to protect the libyan people. and when the civilians of benghazi were threatened with a massacre, we exercised that authority. our international coalition stopped the regime in its tracks, and saved countless lives, and gave the libyan people the time and the space to prevail. important, too, is how this effort succeeded -- thanks to the leadership and contributions of many countries. the united states was proud to play a decisive role, especially in the early days, and then in a supporting capacity. but let's remember that it was the arab league that appealed for action. it was the world's most effective alliance, nato, that's led a military coalition

of nearly 20 nations. it's our european allies -- especially the united kingdom and france and denmark and norway -- that conducted the vast majority of air strikes protecting rebels on the ground. it was arab states who joined the coalition, as equal partners. and it's been the united nations and neighboring countries -- including tunisia and egypt -- that have cared for the libyans in the urgent humanitarian effort that continues today. this is how the international community should work in the 21st century -- more nations bearing the responsibility and the costs of meeting global challenges. in fact, this is the very purpose of this united nations. so every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping libyans reclaim their country.

it was the right thing to do. now, even as we speak, remnants of the old regime continue to fight. difficult days are still ahead. but one thing is clear -- the future of libya is now in the hands of the libyan people. for just as it was libyans who tore down the old order, it will be libyans who build their new nation. and we've come here today to say to the people of libya -- just as the world stood by you in your struggle to be free, we will now stand with you in your struggle to realize the peace and prosperity that freedom can bring. in this effort, you will have a friend and partner in the united states of america. today, i can announce that our ambassador is on his way back to tripoli. and this week, the american flag that was lowered before our embassy was attacked will be raised again, over a reopened american embassy.

we will work closely with the new u.n. support mission in libya and with the nations here today to assist the libyan people in the hard work ahead. first, and most immediately -- security. so long as the libyan people are being threatened, the nato- led mission to protect them will continue. and those still holding out must understand -- the old regime is over, and it is time to lay down your arms and join the new libya. as this happens, the world must also support efforts to secure dangerous weapons -- conventional and otherwise -- and bring fighters under central, civilian control. for without security, democracy and trade and investment cannot flourish. second -- the humanitarian effort. the transitional national council has been working quickly to restore water and electricity and food supplies to tripoli. but for many libyans, each day

is still a struggle -- to recover from their wounds, reunite with their families, and return to their homes. and even after the guns of war fall silent, the ravages of war will continue. so our efforts to assist its victims must continue. in this, the united states -- the united nations will play a key role. and along with our partners, the united states will do our part to help the hungry and the wounded. third -- a democratic transition that is peaceful, inclusive and just. president jalil has just reaffirmed the transitional national council's commitment to these principles, and the united nations will play a central role in coordinating international support for this effort. we all know what is needed -- a transition that is timely, new laws and a constitution that uphold the rule of law,

political parties and a strong civil society, and, for the first time in libyan history, free and fair elections. true democracy, however, must flow from its citizens. so as libyans rightly seek justice for past crimes, let it be done in a spirit of reconciliation, and not reprisals and violence. as libyans draw strength from their faith -- a religion rooted in peace and tolerance -- let there be a rejection of violent extremism, which offers nothing but death and destruction. as libyans rebuild, let those efforts tap the experience of all those with the skills to contribute, including the many africans in libya. and as libyans forge a society that is truly just, let it enshrine the rights and role of women at all levels of society. for we know that the nations that uphold the human rights of

all people, especially their women, are ultimately more successful and more prosperous. which brings me to the final area where the world must stand with libya, and that is restoring prosperity. for too long, libya's vast riches were stolen and squandered. now that wealth must serve its rightful owners -- the libyan people. as sanctions are lifted, as the united states and the international community unfreeze more libyan assets, and as the country's oil production is restored, the libyan people deserve a government that is transparent and accountable. and bound by the libyan students and entrepreneurs who have forged friendships in the united states, we intend to build new partnerships to help unleash libya's extraordinary potential. now, none of this will be easy. after decades of iron rule by one man, it will take time to build the institutions needed for a democratic libya.

i'm sure there will be days of frustration. there will be days when progress is slow. there will be days when some begin to wish for the old order and its illusion of stability. and some in the world may ask, can libya succeed? but if we have learned anything these many months, it is this -- don't underestimate the aspirations and the will of the libyan people. so i want to conclude by speaking directly to the people of libya. your task may be new, the journey ahead may be fraught with difficulty, but everything you need to build your future already beats in the heart of your nation. it's the same courage you summoned on that first february day. the same resilience that brought you back out the next day and the next, even as you lost family and friends. and the same unshakeable determination with which you liberated benghazi, broke the siege of misrata, and have fought through the coastal plain and the western mountains.

it's the same unwavering conviction that said, there's no turning back. our sons and daughters deserve to be free. in the days after tripoli fell, people rejoiced in the streets and pondered the role ahead, and one of those libyans said, "we have this chance now to do something good for our country, a chance we have dreamed of for so long." so, to the libyan people, this is your chance. and today the world is saying, with one unmistakable voice, we will stand with you as you seize this moment of promise, as you reach for the freedom, the dignity, and the opportunity that you deserve. so, congratulations. and thank you very much. >> today the pentagon officially repealed the don't ask don't

tell policy, banning gays from serving openly. from secretaryoe panetta. then, a hearing on the federal debt and the u.s. economy. then we will talk with darrell issa. >> is weekend mark the passing of another former senator. charles percy served three terms as republican senator from illinois and considered a presidential run in 1976. a moderate, he unsuccessfully proposed legislation to promote low-cost housing and home ownership to low income housing and called for an independent prosecutor following the watergate break-in in. watch a few of his c-span appearances at the c-span video library. >> u.s. military has officially

repealed its policy which had banned openly gay americans from serving in the armed forces. the don't ask don't tell law caused 14,000 men and women to be discharged in the last 18 years. we will hear from defense secretary leon panetta and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen. they talked about the pentagon budget at this 40-minute briefing. >> let me acknowledge this is a historic day for the pentagon and for the nation. as of talk 0 1:00 a.m. this morning, we had to repeal of don't ask don't tell, pursuant to lot that was passed by the congress last december.

i believe we have moved closer to achieving the goal and the foundation of the values that america is all about -- equality, equal opportunity, and dignity for all americans. as secretary of defense, i am committed to removing all the barriers that would prevent americans from serving their country and from rising to the highest lyell of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrants. these are men and women who put their lives on the line in the defense of this country. and that is what should matter the most. i want to thank the repeal implementation team and the service secretaries along with a service chiefs for all their

efforts to ensure that dod is ready to make this change consistent with standards of military readiness, with military effectiveness, which unit cohesion, and with the recruiting and retention of the armed forces. all of the service chiefs have stated very clearly that all of these elements have been met in the review that they conducted. the review that they conducted. over 97% of our 2.3 million men in uniform have now receive education and training on the repeal as a result of these efforts. i want to thank the working group for the work they did and a report that laid the groundwork for the change in this policy, and above all, i would like to single out a person who is next to me at this table, admiral mike mullen.

his courageous testimony and leadership of this issue were major factors in bringing us to this day, and he deserves a great deal of credit for what has occurred. let me also, if i can, give you a quick update on the defense budget and where that stands at this point. as you know, the department has been under growing a strategy- driven process to prepare to implement the more than $450 billion in savings we will be required to do over the next day years as a result of the debt limit agreement. this review is still ongoing. no decisions have been made. but i am committed to making these decisions based on the best advice that i received from the service secretaries and from the service chiefs as well as

the combat commanders. i have made clear that i will be guided by the following principles -- one, that we must maintain the very best military in the world, a force capable of deterring conflicts, projecting power, and winning wars. we have been through a decade of war, and the result of that has been almost a doubling of the defense budget during that period. now i have to take on responsibility of exercising fiscal responsibility based on doing our part to confront the deficit, and i think this can be done by shaping, using this as an opportunity to shake the very based defense we can for this country as we approach the

next 10 years. so that we can effectively take on the challenges and threats in the world that we face. secondly, we must avoid a hollow force and maintain a military that will always be ready, and agile, a deployable, incapable. -- and capable. we must take a balanced approach and look at all areas of the budget for potential savings, efficiencies that trim duplication and bureaucratic overhead, to improving competition, contracting procedures, management in the operations and investment programs, to tightening and reforming personnel cost costs and areas, to developing areas that would be a smaller, more agile and more flexible force for the future. finally, we cannot break faith with our men and women in

uniform, a volunteer force which is central to a strong military, and is central to our future. achieving these savings will be very hard. this is not going to be an easy process. these will involve tough decisions and trade offs. why we continue to reducing overhead and duplication, make no mistake, these reductions will force us to take on greater risk in our mission to protect the country in time of war and in the face of growing security challenges. my goal is to try to make sure that these risks are acceptable by making sure that we maintain a strong defense and preserve our ability to protect our court national security interests. even as we take our share of the country's efforts to achieve fiscal discipline, we still face a potentially devastating mechanism known as sequester.

as i try to make clear in the past month, was $1 trillion in past month, was $1 trillion in cuts would seriously weaken our military, and it would really make us unable to protect this nation from a range of security threats that we face. since the cuts would have to be applied in the congress of the edges to every project area -- would have to be applied in equal areas to every projects, it will impact our economic strength as well. cancellation of weapons systems, the georgian province, research activity would seriously cripple our industrial base, which would be unacceptable, not only to me as the secretary of defense but to our ability to be able to maintain the best defense system for the world.

while this budget environment presents some difficult chores as for our armed forces, i believe if we can avoid further cuts we have a real opportunity here to set priorities and make hard choices needed to build a stronger force for the future and to keep faith with our men and women in uniform. finally, let me say a word about mike mullen, since this would be his last conference, at least alongside the secretary of defense. [laughter] >> i will not take that personally. >> it has been a real honor for me to be able to serve with at romanov -- with admiral marlon. he has provided strong mission

in shaping the defense of this country, and as a result of that we are a stronger and more secure in nation because of his leadership. i have worked with him in this job and i worked with him in the past as director of the cia, in particular i appreciate the support he gave us when we conducted the osama bin laden mission. it could not have been done without his support and cooperation. he has been steadfast, a passionate voice for the support of our service members, both he and his wife, and our strategy that is now bearing fruit in iraq and against an opposing great deal of its sussex to his vision, his determination, and his dedication. he is really -- he has really set a standard for the as chairman ofes and a germ

the joint chiefs. i want to thank him for his friendship and i want to thank him for the men and women in uniform who i think, more than anyone else, i appreciate his leadership. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and thank you very much for your leadership and those kind words. i too am very proud of the relationship that we have enjoyed over the last couple of years, and i am grateful for your willingness to continue serving our nation. it has been a pleasure to be a part of your team as he navigated the waters here in the pentagon, and i will say this, you are a pretty quick study. this can be a very difficult culture to master, but it cannot take a very long to figure out bog can actually be a good thing, that man paths are not

hideouts that we find to eat snacks. i do not think we have ever really held out of fooling the former director of the cia are. the truth is he had made an enormous adverse and our troops know you care about them and their families and they know that throughout these lean budget times you will have their backs. i cannot agree with thinking and acting smartly as we make very difficult, very necessary fiscal decisions about force structure, personnel, and operations drisc. these must be strategy driven decisions. we must begin with a clear assessment and the joint force must continue to do for our fellow citizens. the options we must be able to provide our present and be able to curtail those missions and

capabilities which did not comport with that strategy. we must consider the world as it is, the threats as we see them, not wishing away the dangers nor blowing it out of proportion of. it is because i believe that our national debt is at greatest national security threat, but i also believe we must do our part to reduce it to limit its harm. programs that are behind schedule or woefully over budget should be considered for elimination. i think history is in port here as well. i can remember in the early 1990's when two of our major programs, the c-17 in the air force and one program in the navy were in lot of trouble. these programs now are certainly stalwarts in our defense and critical to our success. so there are programs that

should be limited. we just need to be doing the deed to diligence to make sure we get the right ones. the personal accounts that make a vast majority of our -- scrapped for overhead, and those operations that do not in the end directly contribute to the commitments we see as essential must be recalculated. the american people will get the military purchase for them. we should make sure that military is right one for the future, flexible and not to fight wars, big and small, near and far, a force that can secure our national interests and not by its size and shape defined those interests. i remain convinced that our efforts to find more than $450 billion in cuts the president has ordered over the next 10 years is achievable, and like you, i am committed to the process we put in place to do

that. it is the responsible thing to do. i also share your deep tradition over sequestration and the potential for cuts so devastating and so dramatic that we placed at risk the very security we are charged her home to provide, that we hate the very reason we exist. i hope the supercommittee and the congress will recognize in the work where during to shoulder our part of the load and look elsewhere for further reductions to. i also think they will not drive us to make decisions that violate the covenant we have made with our troops and with their families. tenures of war have not broken the all-volunteer force, but drastic budget measures that adversely affect the lives and livelihoods of our people very well might. we can afford to leose things, but we cannot afford to lose them. a word or two on the implementation of don't ask don't tell. i testified in 2010 that it was

time to end this long and this policy. i believe then and i still believe that it was first and foremost than a matter of integrity, that it was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. we're better than that. we should be better than that. and today with implementation of the new law fully in place, we are a stronger joint force, a more tolerant toward force, a force of more character and more honor, more in keeping with our own values. i convinced we did the work necessary to prepare for this change, that we adequately trained and educated our people, and we took the proper consideration of all the regulatory and policy modifications that needed to be made. i appreciate the secretary's office in may, but today is really about every man and woman

who serves this country, every man and woman in uniform, regardless of how they define themselves. and tomorrow, they will all get up, they will all go to work, and they will all be able to do that work on leslie, and earth -- honestly, and their final schism is will be safe from harm. and that is all that will matter. >> admiral marlon mentioned that men and women in uniform are more tolerant today than when don't ask don't tell was begun 18 years ago. i wonder, how do you guard against the possibility that some will try to undermine it or reverse it by committing acts or violence against gays, and also in your opening remarks to you said you're committed to remove all barriers to equal opportunity in the military. does that include allowing women to serve in any position in the military in combat? [unintelligible]

would you comment also of an elaborate on march it made this morning about the timetable for the withdrawal in iraq, which is that i believe that the u.s. would be done -- down to 30,000 to by the end of this month. is that an acceleration of the plan was recently, because it is quite a large drop, and is this in the timeframe in which the iraqis have to make a decision? >> let him go first. >> says the plan that the general had in place, specifically, and it is a plan that gets us to under the current agreement to all the troops out by the end of december, so there's no change. >> with regards to the possibility of harassment, we have a zero tolerance with

regard to harassment, and my hope is the command structure operating with the standard disciplines that are in place will implement those disciplines and will ensure that harassment does not take place and that all behavior is consistent with the discipline and the best interest of our military. with regard to other areas and other barriers, i thinking we always have to continuewe have t them not the table. the opportunity to look at the other opportunities is something we did appe. >> i have the budget which is my highest priority.

>> you did call out it as an unfair law. as you leave office, where does this stands in taking a break. are you comfortable leaving a merit hillary -- leading a military were a lot of them still not have access to of care, pensions, and a supporter network. >> one of the reasons i have been in the military is because i care immensely about the people. they have been extraordinary to work on -- work with and depend on. one was timing. i happen to be the chairman when this came into intense focus.

i have a express my personal views at a time that it to be asked of me. to the process has evolved. i do not think about the top 10 or top five. this is a huge change. it hit at the heart of the issue, and the integrity of the institution. it is valued for us. it serves us well. it is a huge step in the right direction to be inconsistent -- to be consistent with those people. that is how i would describe it. i said then and today the right thing to do is done.

we ought to move on. >> a lot of partners would not have equal treatment. have equal treatment. we are aware that there are benefits which accrue to this change your specifically and directly. it went into effect at midnight. there are some of the ones you talked about. it is in compliance with the law. >> i want to talk to you.

earlier today, i talked about the violence. how can we protect the leaders? what are you talking about? what kind of protection? after four high-profile attacks, is it time to say this is more than just an seeking headlines in propaganda. is it time to take them seriously? >> we do take it seriously. i do not have the details of the them what has been reported. i cannot tell you who is behind it. there are those who would immediately the year and specifically. check in delicate that one way or another.

since weeks before it cars i pose a brother was killed, -- pose a brother was killed, -- singh -- since killed, brother was we look at practices and the involvement. that will continue. reflects the shift. they have not succeeded on the ground. their campaign has failed. they shifted to these high- profile attacks. general allan has describes the attack on the embassy as an operational failure. we take it very seriously.

we know this is what the television is doing. we are doing it. we are where this will continue. -- we are aware this will continue. we do not think this is the time to make change. we do take it seriously. >> what changes do you look at in afghanistan with the revolving threats? >> we are surely concerned about these kinds of attacks.

these have not occurred. we have made progress in going after the leadership. having said that, we now resort to these kinds of attacks and high-level assassinations which are of concern. we have to take steps to try to make sure that we protect against that. we're in the process of doing that in working with the afghans

to discuss steps on how to take to provide better protection so that this is not occur. we are moving in the right direction. we have made progress. we cannot let this deter us. >> regarding to the peace and reconciliation, i regret this law. >> there are efforts with three integration and reconciliation. i am hopeful that we will be able to work with others to try to continue the efforts. to continue the efforts. >> is there any greater willingness to take no action against the? what can you do? >> we are going to take the

steps as unnecessary. talk about anyo particular strategy. our biggest concern is to put as much pressure as possible on the pakistan is. we have continued to say that this has not happened. we cannot have them coming across the border and attacking our forces and afghanistan. we have urged them to take steps. i think they heard the message. we will see. >> he made a recommendation concerning repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and said he could

not turn his back on the pentagon. what is the pentagon doing to mitigate it? the second part was that the law changes they will be the first want to comply with the law. secretary spoke to the training. our the last several months as we conducted a training, we have not found any significant issues other -- the training was not to change one's view but to make

sure everyone understood what the rules were. i have great confidence that we will march off and do this. >> i talked to him directly about that. he said after doing the review and saying there is no impact, he was committed to putting this in place and it was important to move on. >> going back to the economy, you said you think they had heard about what needs to be done inside the border. we have heard this for several years now. each at a meeting with the general. have you been wrong with this

tax are there steps that could have been done -- with this? are there steps that could have been done? >> there were the majority meetings. we can sustain their relationship. to have a very tough patch over the last several months. -- we have had a very tough that over the last several months. we take this issue very seriously. last friday night, it was the heart of the discussion that the proxy connection to the isi our people passed to stop. it is not a new message. it is one he clearly

understands. we have to keep reiterating. we have sustained the relationship. things are not going well. we have been able to sustain that and start to move it again. i have addressed this issue. there could be no question. there could be no question. >> this is what we have been doing over the last few years. sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. the most important thing we can do is keep the pressure on. and they cooperate with us in some areas. terrorism is as much a threat to them as it is before us.

we keep telling them that we cannot -- economic change. this is something we have to continue. >> as fighting continues in a few places, how much longer or the u.s. continue to participate in the nation operation? >> there is the role that nato performed there. obviously, nato will continue to provide whatever assistance it can as it winds up. clearly, if the opposition has made significant progress.

there are still some elements of the region that are out there. as to what future role is involved, that is something we will be discussing with nato. i have already begun some of these discussions with my nato partners trying to decide what should be the next steps. >> it is consistent with what the secretary said. the secretary said. and number one out of -- a number of them went out of their way to make sure they could succeed to this point extensively. the decision was made to put aside a support role. we are part of nato. it is a critical alliance.

>> there are reports that the state department has had hire contractors in iraq. will they put all their forces by the end of the year? are you concerned about the size of the discussion of being left behind axle of the two small? is a wise? is a time to pull troops out of? >> let me just this. >> let me just this. it is important to understand that we are in negotiations with

them. we're listening to their needs and concerns. we have to look at what they have to provide security. it is premature to determine what the size of what this would be. it is all dependent on negotiations. i think this will be one of the issues that would be involved. >> it is the same thing. we are in the middle of negotiations. it is not determined.

there's no one that can say that. it is a hard process to take into consideration. it is what they want their relationship to be. this will be worked out inside that negotiation. we are not there yet. we need to look at what the potential could be. we have analyzed this fairly well. if there is any, it to be from an emission sampling. >> but if you could talk about the savings.

gordon adams who work for you has called the savings phony. he says the award against the baseline. it is an estimate of what it might be. >> we discussed this. we are supportive of this. we have worked on budget issues. my experience is that there are with regard tos recal

scoring. everyone will draw different numbers based on what baseline you're using. if the recommendations are implemented, i think there would be some. it is important to remember that the committee has to focus on that part of the budget which at to this point has not been addressed. that is the mandatory. the user areas that do have to be included. i hope the committee will take those recommendations and build on it. >> we have time for a few more. >> you said you believe it is your role to make the case to congress about why these are so dangerous.

the say it is not triggered that they could trigger it. can you talk about involved you are? >> i met with members. i have made clear that what we're doing what we have will involve some tough decisions. we can implement that in a way that is the best defense. it will allow us to deal with the threats. if additional cuts are added on top of that, either by virtue of sequester or super committee, then they are going to do serious damage to our

ability to make the kind of changes. my message is that defense is taking more of its share of the cuts. there are reductions. we will need to have the opportunity to be able to implement that in a responsible way. if you're sears of dealing with the deficit, do not go into your discretionary accounts. pay attention to the 2/3 that is largely responsible for the size of the dead that we are dealing with. >> president obama said there are no u.s. troops on the ground. is it -- does the u.s. consider

sending them on the ground tha? >> the only person we have put on the ground, we have deployed four individuals to analyze the situation. i think we did it about a week ago. in the past two days via deployed in them -- another 12. this is it. we do not intend to but in the combat forces in. -- intend to put any combat forces in.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow, an update on the investigation into solyndra. we enjoyed by tim murphy users on the energy and commerce committee. then charlie rangel on the debt reduction plan. later, a conversation with the heartland institutes.

>> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, and american history. look for congress to continue federal spending into november including funding for a recent national disasters. he taps they formulate a plan to lower the debt. this is all available to you on television, radio, and online. we are on the road with their c- span mobile content the panel's -- content vehicles. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> next, a joint economic hearing on the federal debt and the effect on the u.s. economy.

you would hear testimony from analysts about the challenges of creating jobs in current economic situation. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for joining. the topic is what is the real debt limit. we appreciate the panelists we have here today. i want to commend senator demint for spearheading this hearing. i would yield to him for the opening statement. >> i appreciate all of your work to put this together. i want to thank all of our panelists for taking the time to be here. a couple of months ago, everyone was in a panic about what might happen if we cannot

borrow any more money. the president mentioned it might not be able to pay social security and talked about reneging on payments to contractors. it is a pretty dire situation if the united states cannot borrow any more money. that debt limit was arbitrary set by congress. it is one we could change by a simple bill. my concern is that where is the real debt limit? when do we hit the wall. perhaps the fed cannot print enough money. at what point is there not enough credit in the world to continue to finance all the debt turn nations. their model a census stops working -- acidulous stops

working because of the debt. at a coupleook se relative to the gdp. there's no way we will get that. is a buying a lot of our debt are ready? is there still a mark for the kind of debt that the united states needs to sell? it is a washington term, said the shortfall. we said we would reduce that to put $1 trillion over the next 10 years. we're giving the impression that we're actually lowering the debt. we will continue to release the debt.

if we look at our turks -- charts, i am not sure we can borrow that much money. where is the tipping point for american? beyond which the interest rates will rise sharply in economic growth will decline dramatically. as you look at the potential tipping point for greece and ireland and portugal, we see the united states is right there.

how high will interest rates go? will the fed discriminate? these are things we're trying to anticipate. since the financial crisis in 2008, the balance sheet has tripled to $2.90 trillion. we can see what the federal reserve has done. it means we are printing money and buying debt. how could the policies affect the tipping point? what can we expect? there are lots of questions. we need to know how long they can monetize the debt before the world begins to lose confidence in our currency.

my challenge to the panelists is all politics aside, our country is drowning in debt. the plan is to continue borrowing money for the foreseeable. >> i want to thank you for following today's hearing to examine the broader economy. i welcome our witnesses to dr. lawrence ball. is located ins

baltimore and the middle of my district. last week, he testified before the new joint select committee on deficit reduction. he reported that if we proceed under current law, allowing the bush tax cuts to expire the end of this year, debt will equal 61% of gdp. it is recorded between 1971 and 2010. under the baseline, debt held by the public is expected to balloon to nearly 190% of gdp by 2035. notwithstanding, the latest long-term projections under the

bush control act, interest payments on the act would create a clearly unsustainable scenario. there is no inherent contradiction between using fiscal policy to support the economy today and imposing fiscal restraint several years to now. we want to achieve a short-term economic pain and fiscal sustainability, the combination of policies will be required. draconian spending cuts will not

generate the economic growth we now. it will enable them to compete and succeed. more over, the cuts are a necessary to rein in the debt and will only serve to slow are already tepid growth. the recession that started in 2007 is responsible for more than $400 billion ever and the deficits. one of the most effective steps we could take it today.

according to the clinton ministration, which recited over one of the most sustained period of economic growth in our nation's history, she said investment in infrastructure would address the jobs gap here an extra percentage point of growth would do more than reduce the deficit during that time. an extra percentage point would add about $2.50 trillion in revenue. while this is aimed at the federal debt, the debt is in nominal factor.

it is slowed hiring. it reduces public investment in the continuing foreclosure crisis. this rather than the other way around. until we recognize this reality and to check all these challenges. >> thank you. we will keep the time manually. this is a timer and a reduced

time limit. -- this is the time limit. we yield to senator demint. >> it is my privilege to introduce are three distinguished witnesses. this is an enormous performance to the american people. he is currently a professor public policy. he previously served as a member of the economic policy advisory board. he is a consultant to the u.s. treasury department and the board of governors. in 1999, he served as a chairman of the international finance

destitution. he is the author of numerous books on economic theory and policy including a multivolume history of the federal reserve. he is a ph.d. in economics. next we will be hearing from mr. chris edwards to is currently the director of tax policy studies at the cato institute and editor of the web site. he's the senior economist for the joint economic committee in the tax foundation from 1992 and 1994 bear he has done extensive

research and writing on a variety of economic topics. it is the high inflation countries. with the specific focus is on how to best reduce inflation. he is currently a research associate at the national bureau of economic research. he was previously elected at the imf institute a member of the federal reserve board's academy advisory panel and a consultant on the international monetary fund outlook. he told a be a in economics -- a

ba and phd and economics. it is great to have the odd here today. >> my association with this committee is back to the days is senator paul douglas. he prodded them to stop holding this and hold monetary policy to do much more. today i will answer the question that they seek to answer. i will introduce my answers with

my explanations of why policy is misguided and mistaken and inappropriate. there are several reasons. in writing the three volumes of the federal reserve, i've written more transcripts and any person can endure. with rare exceptions, one looks in vain for statement of the medium-term consequences of the actions taken at the meeting. they never tried to reach agreements on the consequences of its actions to the public. it publishes a forecast. there are no clear relations between the forecast and the action. concerns but they're mainly about the near-term. there is greater importance on the medium term.

they seem to do something of a high unemployment. they neglect the fact that there's no shortage of money and liquidity. this never achieved anywhere. there's never problem with too little liquidity. last time they tried it, since some of billion dollar was added. several members said there are limits to what they can do. money growth for the past six months is rising at an almost 15% annual raise.

here is the charge. it is recently the in rate of increase. inflation is a result. it has begun to rise. prices are rising. the u.s. dollar continues to sing. there is the announcement of an enforceable inflation target to give confidence that we will not inflate. in 1977, congress gave the federal reserve a dual mandate. it pursues these goals in an inefficient way by pursuing unemployment. it is shifting to an of climate control. -- to unemployment control. the great inflation is an extreme example.

unemployment and inflation rose. it is in contrast to policy. more best follows a role that included both. in article one, it gives congress ultimate control of money. it legislates an enforceable inflation target. matter to the three questions. given the fiscal policy, will government debt crowd out private ones? the prospect of higher tax rates is there.

cash's their friends. regulatory policies deter and crowd out investment. one of the most effective things they do it is passed a moratorium on new regulation for the next five years excepting national security. >> year five and a time and has expired. will you include testimony? >> yes. let me say this. why wait for a tipping point in a crisis that we know the debt

-- why wait for a tipping point in a crisis? we know the debt does not include fannie mae and freddie mac. there is not a point that we can lock down and say after this crisis occurs we do not know. -- say "after this crisis occurs." we do not know when the crisis occurs. the market changes its mind without prior notification. we should begin. we have ample warning that we are on an unsustainable path. tot path is to say we need reduce the deficit in a credible way.

we do by announcing a plan that can put this on the path that we have to be gone if we're going to restore long-term growth rate. >> but the testimonies of three witnesses will be submitted. >> the cbo projects that federal spending will rise 24%. budget chart showed, the federal debt will explode almost 20% by 2035 unless we make reform. some people think it is ok if america raises taxes in coming years because they think we have a uniquely small government in

this country. that is the longer the case. if you look at data, total federal spending in united states is 41 certification of gdp. that is only -- 41 % of gdp. that is only 4 % less. we are becoming a bloated welfare state. this is one of your charts showed. if you look at growth over the last four years, our debt has grown the fastest. of crisis going on. we're getting up to that level.

it is about half of gdp by 2035 care there are fewer -- by 2035. there are fewer. it would be really sad to lose that. there are terms of all this deficit spending. additional spending cuts in the less productive government of the economy. if the government is our is spending 4 out of every $10, it seems marginal spending is going to have a lower-return. texas a&m public finance professor edgar browning went through the whole budget a month that federal spending. hasigures the expenst

lowered by about 25%. we are above the tipping point. the second basic term is creating deficits that are to support taxes that will pinch the economy down the road. economists look to the distortions as damaging the economy. when you raise taxes because more and the economy which reduces gdp. the third harm is the debt itself. we can see this in europe. the economic growth start slow. here's what it think a lot of

people are missing. if you look at the long-term cbo projections, to show the rise, it looks bad enough. it is right worse than that. they cannot take into account the fact that the rise in debt and spending suppresses g.d.p.. as vessels analysis -- a special analysis shows that rise and is pretty scary. they show that the real u.s. income rise for the next decade or so cans that may. this is a reversal of the american income. last year they compare the road map. it is versus the do nothing fiscal sincerity. they found that the average

incomes would be 70% power under the paul ryan roadmap plan. some fear that spending cuts will hurt the economy. since 2008ve trillion o car. if you look around a real-world examples, and your staff has put this in canada and sweden. they have cut through spending. canada's dramatically cut their spending in the mid-1990's. it did not depress the economy. they boomed for 15 years. congress should turn its attention to major spending cuts as soon as we can. we have all sorts of ideas.

i do not look us spending cuts as mess and we should fear. i think it will be positive boom. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for this opportunity to share my views on u.s. history policy. others emphasize the dangers of debt. i will focus on a different side .f the issue appear this will be elaborated. i will argue that a reduces this in the short and medium run. it occurs during the economic slump.

this varies very widely. most textbooks teach that fiscal tightening slows the economy by reducing the demand for goods and services. some suggest that it boosts confidence in the economy. they have reasonable arguments. we have to look at the evidence. in my view it is clear. if they raise taxes today, the actions will slow economic growth and raise unemployment until 2016. this is supported by numerous studies. we will focus on these over the past few years. many economists fear it as the best available evidence. my written testimony described this in detail.

they identify 173 years in which government reduced budget deficit through spending cuts, tax increases or combination of the two. the average reduction of one% of gdp raises the unemployment by 4/10 o. higher unemployment results from longer-term unemployment. workers without jobs for 26 weeks or more. they're likely to understate the effects in today's economy. this dampens the rise in

unemployment. the federal reserve cannot reduce rates. in this situation, the evidence suggests the cost of deficit reduction are about twice the normal size. but consider one a hypothetical fiscal policy. the evidence -- the cut would raise unemployment 2.4%. it is an additional 3.6 million americans.

let me mention another appointment. it focuses on deficit-reduction turgut on government spending and tax increases. -- targets on government spending and tax increases. in one way, it is not important. the imf has separate analysis and tax increases. it is similar. can any policy rain in debt without slowing the economy? the possible answer is fiscal consolidation in which tax increases are back over time. it is more stimulus in the short term. they got it under control in the long run.

it is one example of how this might be done, one could imagine cost-saving changes in in and tied him a program such as a higher retirement age that could be phased in over time. it could occur after the economy has recovered from its current slot. this reduction will be less painful than because interest rates would be above zero. let me thank you again for your attention. >> thank you for your testimony. we will begin a round of questioning. what is the real debt limit for america? it is dangerously near and not in our control. actions change quickly and countries that at prudently are

in a better position. my question is do you think there are some lawmakers in denial about the seriousness of our debt crisis? temporarily, it is being masked by inside and outside the fence quantitative easing lower of interest rates. it creates a flight to safety. it is temporarily lower. do you think that once the true cost is revealed that there could be a more serious action by some in washington to get this crisis under control? >> i believe steps are to get

1.5 trillion in reductions. whinnied the key -- give people confidence that their future -- we need to give people confidence that their future is bright, that we are on a stable pattern, that we are going to go back to the future that the wave -- the way that we've done the past. unlike mr. ball, what models like the imf of model leave out that if you remove the sources of low productivity and goods, it may be very desirable for people to receive transfers from the government. i do not dispute that. but those have very low productivity use.

if we transfer resources to higher productivity use, we raise the future. if we cut the deficit, we convince people that their tax rates are not going to be higher in the future. the imf model does not allow for that. it does not take into account the productivity changes and the beneficial effects of expected lower tax rates. those are important conditions. let me close by saying two things. if we look at the history of the post-war period, we find that there were three fiscal changes they're really did enormous good. one was that kennedy-johnson tax cut. the chairman of the council of economic advisers said the most effective part was the business tax cuts they got the biggest bang for the buck. the sec that big fiscal change they worked well -- the second

big fiscal giselle were well was the reagan tax cuts. and the third policy they gave people confidence or the tax increases under clinton, which assured people that their future tax rates were not going to go up. they had seen what they were going to have to pay and there would not be any more. that is important -- and give people confidence. that is what people desperately need at the moment, confidence that the policy that the government puts out are going to be sustainable. >> dr. edwards. >> i think this goes to the right point. because we are haven for international capital and a dangerous world, the american policy makers have been able to run a vote -- running giant

deficits for far too long. a smaller country like australia, the debt crisis would already have happened. in a story on bloomberg, italy has been downgraded. and the s&p noted that they were downgraded because they have a dysfunctional political system. that seems to be what is going on in the united states. canada, again, to do back to the 1990's. they hit the law and ours is up to 100% of gdp. we have been skating along because we are in this special situation. japan shows that you can run as a zombie and economy for a decade or two. the real damage is ultimately the spending. we have to get spending under control. that has been the key to success in places like canada and sweden that have cut their deficits.

>> thank you. the key is to restore consumer and business confidence by getting our financial house in order with a credible way to shrink the size of government to restore the balance. >> just adding on to what was just said by mr. brady, did i understand you correctly to say that when you talked about when president clinton raised taxes, you did not see that as a negative thing. but youme if i'm wrong, saw it as something that create a level of certainty. you're saying that the certainty is more important than some other factors? [inaudible] we really want to hear that. is your microphone on? do not go on sodomy. >> he really had the benefits of

the cold war so he was able to cut spending, being a finance person from wall street, rubin told him not to run deficits and he did not. he gave people confidence. does that mean that a tax increase now would do what a tax increase did then? i do not face of. >> let's take up on that, dr. paul. after -- during the clinton era, we produce some 22 million jobs. since 2000, by the way, they have steadily declined, which historically low tax rates due to the 2001 and 2003 bush tax cuts. this reversal of growth has led some economists to describe a time. i between 2000-2010 as the lost

decade for america's middle class. i find it particularly troubling that the government imposing austerity measures during a downturn have lasting negative impacts on income and employment levels and of the bulk of these negative effects fall on middle-class and working people. i am specifically concerned that if the select committee on deficit reduction achieves a the require 1.2 -- achieves the $1.2 jury and in cuts at with only spending cuts, this could behalf lost income for millions of americans, like those or fiber tenures away from retirement. throughout the last decade, dr. ball, working americans have watched their incomes stagnate or spiral downward and 25

million more americans are unemployed or underemployed. are you worried about the detrimental impact that $1.2 trillion in cuts could have on the middle class? and does their recent work that -- and does the recent reports that we have so many people under the poverty level? >> i am very concerned about that. there has been the stagnation of middle-class living standards. that has a variety of causes. but there is no question that an artificial fiscal contraction right now what s acerbate that. -- would exacerbate that. when there is a cut in spending

, there's every reason to think that the shift in income and jews -- income distribution away from workers as well as of fall in total. as far as unemployment, no one is a lecture on how terrible problem is. there is a lot of research but it is also obvious battle losing your job is especially difficult, especially during and back -- an economic downturn. it takes a long time to find a new job. we have half the unemployed who are unemployed for six months or more. i could go into some of the social science research about the damage that that does to families, health, of course, children's performance and skills -- in school, but you know that. >> we constantly hear to get rid of regulation, and it seems like i wonder that when we get rid of

all these regulations, does that guarantee that jobs are going to be added? you make it easier for the employer to take away safety measures from the public, it easier to make more money, but is that a guarantee that we will then see jobs expand? >> no, absolutely not. under regulation, there are a lot of pros and cons about the benefits. but as a way of dealing with the current slump, 9% unemployment, that is honestly not a factor. what we have is a classic short fall in demand. normally when that happens historically, the federal reserve has cut interest rates, and at the top -- if the economy does recover, it cuts interest rates more. what is problematic about the current situation is that the

interest rates are at 0% and so the federal reserve has run at its usual ammunition. we need to think about some other way to get investment on spending. >> may add to that? i may add to that? briefly. cutting regulation and giving people the assurance about future taxes does a great deal. what it does is if you are a businessman and you want to invest, the first thing you do, you go out and figure out what is the expected rate of return going to be. you cannot do that because every day or every week there are new regulations. the health care, finance, labor, and also for the environmental and the president is out campaigning for higher tax rates. so you do not know what you're going to face, and so you sit on a bundle of cash and wait.

we have never seen so much cash in the hands of banks and businesses as we do now. so we have asked ourselves, why is that? and the answer is, because there dreadfully on certain and lacked confidence about what the future is going to be. they do not know what that future is and they cannot estimate what the expected rate return is. if they invest, they create jobs. most of the jobs created are created by firms that start of and in the first three use -- they start up and in the first three years hire and expand. >> thank you. >> dr. ball, you have reference to an imf study. is it fair to assume that it includes many nations with the government workforces that are of a larger percentage than the u.s.?

>> yes. >> so with a determination of cutting spending, those governments would have higher unemployment because of that, because the spending directly affects the government work force. >> i do not quite that that follows. it is very careful in trying to measure a spending cut of a certain amount relative to gdp, what are the average attacks on unemployment. >> will we see with our deficit spending over the last two years, is maintaining government employees at the state levels, teachers, others, but it seems to me that that deficit spending is good for the spending and cutting that spending would cause higher unemployment, that using the study were most of the nation's have a greater percentage of government workers as part of the work force, it may not necessarily be accurate. do you not see the american economy, our free-market

capitalist system, as different than most of the other nations of the world? >> this nation -- the study includes kennedy and a variety of the world's most advanced countries. -- can adapt and a variety of the world's most advanced countries -- canada and a variety of the world's most advanced countries feared it would apply to europe and to australia. >> a lot of the people who wants to be more like centrally planned european economies, that as part of our different world views that we're dealing with right here. but maybe a question to the whole group, mr. edwards and dr. meltzer, maybe i will go to you first on this. we're clearly uncharted territory right now. we can have different opinions on that, but the federal reserve interventions are unprecedented.

stimulus spending is at the end of unprecedented levels. the week and almost nonexistent recovery, and despite the incredible levels of spent -- of stimulus spending, is unprecedented. so out of these factors affect the nearness to the tipping point? we cannot determine where that is, but where are we going to borrow the money from? we are projecting a trillion dollars a year that we have to borrow or print. we're is that going to come from? are we in such uncharted territories now but we need to do more than just sound an alarm? orion might unnecessarily rigid or am i a necessarily seeing a bleak situation? -- or am i unnecessarlily

seeing a bleak situation? is to enter at percent of gdp in has been for a couple of decades. -- 200% of gdp and have been for couple of decades. that is a real problem. as the cbo points out, if we keep this up, we will produce gdp but a bigger chunk of that will not be going to americans, but to foreign creditors. that is why our standard of living will be suppressed by this buildup of debt. i must say that hitting the tipping point -- that is not the end of the store. ireland hit the tipping point, but recent news reports indicate

that they have taken good policy actions, cutting spending, and they are on the brink of recovery. they are -- they are in a much different situation in greece, even though both had mass of spikes of debt. ireland has taken the right policy courses and they are headed in the right direction. again, i do not think the biggest issue facing you is where the tipping point is. stopping the bleeding as soon as we can. >> i am almost out of time. >> ireland did not have a large debt. it got a large dead because it assumed that the debt of the banking system. it descended as a public debt. that was a huge mistake. -- it assumed its as a public debt. that was a huge mistake. when greece hit the -- joined

the ecb, it hit some of its debt. suddenly that same situation gave rise to a loss of confidence. that was a tipping point. why did not occur two years, five years earlier? i do not think anyone can answer that. >> senator mcculvane is recognized. >> i have learned not to get in a battle of wits when i'm woefully underarmed. it has been a long time since i've taken economics. let me try not to make a big of a fool of myself. do you believe that there is such thing as a tipping point in the size of this debt? >> absolutely. all three of us agree there is a tipping point and we do not know where it is. it would be prudent not to find out. by no means to want to say that

we should not be very concerned about long run sustainability. >> that is where i was hoping we could get. if we get past that point, it would be much worse than the situation we find ourselves in today. is that a fair statement? >> probably. because the u.s. is special and this is an president, when it would happen or how bad it would be, again, it is the kind of thing we do not want to learn about. >> and that is one of my frustrations with the classical yesian.cion's -- ken we sit with the board of experts regarding entitlement, two republican witnesses, an

independent witness, and a democratic witness. they give as between two years and five-years, and one of my concerns is when i read your analysis and when i read your testimony, we lack any type of this long-term outlook. we're simply looking at the next quarter and an effort to try to boost the gdp. you go to the end of your testimony and you talk about wide printing money an expansionary policy might not have the same type of inflationary outcomes that we have seen. but many of us, including members of this board, because you say businesses do not monitor that that balance sheet and they do not base their pricing decisions on changes in the monetary base, i use to run of business and i can assure you that i did not watch their respective tariff policies. but i watched my costs.

when my costs went up, i had to raise my prices. i was not watching the fed, but the brokers in food and fuel certainly were. it might cost one up because of expansion or policies, i had no choice to raise my prices or go out of business. he saw hyperinflation without -- and there was high unemployment at that time, fairly low and productivity, and we had tremendous inflation. what i fear when i look at your proposal is that we are underestimating the risk of inflation and hyperinflation. take a minute and tell me why i can sleep tonight. >> on the fiscal issues, you talk about the long run in the short run, in the long run we

are all dead, something that people are embarrassed about now. but the long run is important. there is a lot of agreement about the long run dangers of the debt. but we need to be realistic about if we are very aggressive right now at cutting the debt, there will be major costs. >> if we believe that we were closer to the to pinpoint rather than further, if we believe that we were closer than you may the, is an entirely rational for us to take steps that we're doing? >> at some level, the right steps are obvious. everyone could even agree. it is addressing the looming -- there is a cbo charge of that debt going off, primarily because of entitlement programs. in a perfect world, congress would get together and have a friendly discussion and figure out some nice moderate compromise on how to fix entitlement programs. that would solve the long-term problem without giving a big

negative jolt to the economy today. if we address the deficit by willy-nilly spending cuts over the next decade, maybe and i am not going to save rare that that is overall a good bad, but there is owned by higher unemployment, they're going to be costs. >> you mentioned willy-nilly cuts and i agree with you, simply going in and cutting randomly might have a different outcome than cutting specifically. the canadian example has been mentioned. going back and looking at history, it appears that there cuts focused on wealth transfer programs and not infrastructure. would you agree with the premise that cuts and wealth transfer programs might have less of an impact on unemployment and cuts to infrastructure spending? >> i think that is plausible. infrastructure spending has a

substantial cut back on unemployment. -- the impact on on employment. -- effect on employment. when an economy is overheated, workers push for higher wage increases, firms are in capacity, so they can raise their prices. an overheated economy is the last thing we need to think about right now. >> mr. campbell of california is recognized. >> i have been talking about the real debt lemon and i have been saying that we have all lot of debate and dispute here in congress over the statutory debt limit, but it is an arbitrary number and a real debt limit is when we reach what we're all calling the tipping point.

but the push back and get on that from some people and allied have dr. meltzer and mr. edwards to respond, we are a long way away from that. look at treasury debt right now. it is dropping down below 1.9% and so forth, the auctions are there, there is a tremendous appetite for treasury debt. this is an indication that we are a long way from that tipping point. what either of you like to respond to that? >> first, i would say the size of the unfunded mandate does not -- is thought included in most of the numbers that we talk seven timessix to the size of the deficit, depending on what interest rate you use. that is an enormous amount, just

as the chart shows. mr. ball and i agree. is the medicare and medicaid expenditure -- if is the medicare and medicaid expenditure that is going to cause the problem. it pales in in significance compared to medicare and medicaid. there are a lot of things that we can do. and they do not require taking away promised benefits to people. but changing them -- for example, and one of many, we have to ask why do we spend about 50% of medicare money on people who are within six months of dying? for some there is a benefit, but there is no co pay attached to that. we attached a copiague and graduated accorded income, we will produce a lot. >> just because i have time, how

the respond to those people who said that in spite of all of this, we have considerably more debt that we can run up, and the evidence of that is the appetite for and a low-interest rate on treasury bills. >> the reason we have the low enforcement -- we have a low interest-rate is because the fed in forces said. the dollar has appreciated by 15% against the weak currencies like the euro, and even larger against the japanese yen. the most recent inflation number was 3.8% well above the fed's target. i do not buy the argument that in a weak economy, you do not get inflation. you gave the example of germany. spain has 20% unemployment. prices are rising. britain has a high unemployment rate. prices are rising. there are other sources other

than the labor market to give you inflation and we are going to get them. >> mr. edwards. >> there are the gigantic negative risks if something been in bad happens to the american economy, and we do not know what it is. look at the january 2008 cbo projection for data not project a recession. they actually projected growth would be strengthening in the coming year. we're going to be surprised hong how the next negative factor comes up. what if we have a gigantic recession a few years from now, another major recession, tax revenues plunging again, unemployment soars, they will want to do with giant stimulus and we will be in a spiral downward of debt and poor economic growth. we have to start planning now buried their risk factors are all on the negative side. european countries our horrible

demographic problems and their debt levels are going up. -- how hot -- have worse demographic problems than ours and their debt levels are going up. the risks are all on the ugly side. >> my last 15 seconds, anyone want to comment on the same -- changing maturities that they hold? >> it will not do much. back in the 1960's, they had big experiment and it did not work. that is their own research at the fed. it did not work. if you suppress long-term rates and raise short-term rates, what the market people going to do? they will go the other way. >> my time is expired. >> the chair recognizes dr. bird

from texas. >> you're not meant to speed today, dr. burgess. >> your referenced a moment ago about the costa care for patients in the last months. -- the cost of care for patients in their last month. the principal problem it is the patients. they do not tell us when the last two weeks began. but along those lines, we talk about the cost drivers contained within medicare and medicaid. you talked about changing things so that they do not take away future benefits. i submit within the health-care realm, there is problem $1.3

jury in an immediate savings that will not take away future benefits, and that would be delaying the implementation of the affordable care act which no one seems to seriously consider when they have a deficit commission or talk to the president. is that something that this congress should take under serious consideration? >> yes. >> thank you. and for any of you, i thought to number my community members, and the community bankers tell me that they are hampered high that fact that they must keep their loan to deposit ratio under 80% or will they -- or they will invite a visit from a bank examiner and it may not be pleasant. they take pains to not go that last 20%.

as a consequence, they are not making money on that 20% of the depositors. the community is deprived from the loans. is that a bigger problem of what has been talked about before? >> i think that that is a problem. depressed lending by community banks is one factor, holding back the recovery. perhaps regulators could change their attitude a little bit, or to think of creative ways to encourage lending and help recapitalize community banks. >> but we of gone the other way in the past 18-24 months. rather than making the regulations, perhaps clarifying them, we have made them more heavy. we frighten people with the regulatory environment they are

going to encounter. that is one of the reasons that cash is staying on the sidelines? >> that is one of the reasons. generally regulation. as speaker boehner said so well the other day, you can move your plant to china but you cannot move it to south carolina. that sounds funny, but at the same time, it really tells us a serious thing about regulation does to the attitude business. >> the president is talking about raising taxes to create jobs. and yet this is the same white house that just this weekend said that lockheed and fort worth cannot sell to taiwan, that the national labor relations board said that you cannot build aircraft and south carolina, and the biggest jet purchase in the history of the country is buying non-boeing products for the first time in the company's history.

american airlines is buying non- american produced jets. 18 power plants are closing in texas on january 1 because of the cost of air pollution rule, a significant detriment on jobs. the white house simply will not make a decision whether they say yes or no, drilling in the arctic for oil, they will not make a decision. the problem i see it is that taxes are not-not bad at -- that there white house is so risk averse, they are afraid to act. >> i agree with that completely. you do not know what the future is going to be, cash is your friend. focusre's been so much by policy makers on macroeconomics. misguided focus in certain ways, in my view.

microeconomics is extremely important bird go back and look at what margaret thatcher did after a decade of stagnation in the 1970's. she got the macroeconomics and order, but she did a whole lot on the microeconomics side. tax reform, deregulation, privatization -- it is hard to quantify the impact on the economy but there is no doubt that fast growth economies are getting but the macro and micro economic range. >> i'll let the second that. i worked with mrs. thatcher for some of the time. she was a real leader, willing to make tough decisions. >> thank you. we're going to undergo a second round of questions by mr. cummings and senator demint. mr. cummings is recognized. >> to what extent are dead as is being driven by slow economic growth?

-- our deficits being driven by slow economic growth? and the proposal, the most recent job proposal presented by the president, i wanted to know your opinion of those might be? and did you feel that they would be helpful as many economists have projected? >> no question that the main driving force behind the big run-up in the budget deficit is the economic slump. someone else referred to lower tax revenues, high and high unemployment insurance, it is as strong regularity that deficits go up in recessions and we have had a main recession. the stimulus program added to the debt. but it was a secondary thing compared to the recession. restoring growth is the best protect the grid -- deficit reduction plan.

as far as the president's jobs plan, i have not studied it in detail. it seems like a step in the right direction. we face a huge problem and whether it is that jobs plan for paris deregulation or the things that the fed can do, it is not clear that any of the measures that we have hardly sufficient. when they have to try something more radical or accept that we live with high and a plumber for quite awhile. >> mr. coming, that jobs plant cost $200,000 per job. my wife was not an economist and listen to that and said, what we just give them a hundred thousand dollars -- hundred $50,000 and we will be ahead of the game. we're not going to get out this

problem by spending $200,000 per job. sayingmeltzer, you're that you cannot -- one of the things that bothers me about all this, you look at something like infrastructure. in maryland, they have a sink hole developing every eight minutes. every eight minutes. we have bridge is falling apart. i felt some people the other day, you can erode from the inside. you can die from the inside. if you're not educating your people, if you're not innovating, you cannot be competitive, so at what point -- it seems to me you have got to spend, you have to spend carefully to get the economy going and get people moving carefully, but at the same time, you cannot die in the

process. the time you get out of the mess, you do not have a country. do you agree with me? >> i agree that the infrastructure in the united states is bad. i live in pittsburgh. i will match you for -- bridge for bridges and all have a lot left over. but if you have confidence that you would take bricklayers and convert them to road builders overnight, you're kidding yourself. building a bridge is a big job and it requires people who are trained in steel. let's take some of the unemployed construction workers and make them road builders? if you want them to build roads, they use heavy equipment. you have to learn had a drive that. that will not be a solution. i agree, the long-term problems of infrastructure. we have to do what we can about infrastructure.

that is a constructive thing. we waited wait too long to do something about it. education, if we really have tried with education. it is terribly important. the gap in incomes between the port of is driven mainly by the fact that technology has changed. i was a corporate officer or director and if you did not have an education, you could not read the computer, that was aside your workstation, you swept the floor. that is a loss of people. we need to do something about that. i wish i knew what we needed to do. >> if thank you very much. >> senator demint is recognized.

>> i want to thank congressman cummings and dr. ball for bread is ending before presenting the alternate view today. we have a big difference of opinion in washington what we need to do to fix the problem. i do not think that i'm looking at this to a political prism. i'm thinking of as a guy who was in business for many years. i consulted with a number of other business people. my political perspective is really not a political perspective. what i am looking at today, by any measure, from a business perspective, our nation is bankrupt. if you look at the balance sheet. we have a negative cash flow projected continuously. most of our operating capital are us money. every new program that was just has to be borrowed or rented. our fate is in the hand of our creditors. that is a worrisome situation. i do not know how we can get

around that. and a solution to use a business parallel, it tasted for% of americans to make over $200,000 also make the most of our jobs and give the most charity. they are the ones making things happen, and taking more money from them and giving more money to those who create the debt does not the same to make a lot of common sense. when a business is revenue is down and they decide to raise their prices, that is what we're talking about doing here. our business is down, our revenue is down, so we want their raise the prices on our customers, those creating their revenue for us. that is a difficult thing to swallow when we know in our economy, and it may not be true an imf economist, but we have an economy where 3% of americans are paying over half of the taxes, they're creating the jobs, providing investment capital, and that will not solve

our problem if you look at the data for the last 10 years. the increase in our deficit is mostly attributable to an increase in spending. and that includes a lot of discretionary spending. social security does not contribute to our debt it all. we have not barred $3.6 trillion from social security, we would be a lot more in debt and we are today. this is a belief that we need to direct the economy and the difference of opinion is that the government is the primary stimulator of the economy versus those of us to think there reason america was so exceptional and prosperous was that we re bottom up economy but millions of people starting businesses, innovating, being entrepreneurs. those of the people we seem to want to attack right now. 40% of those who haven't come over $200,000, 40% of their income is small business income. i understand the need to

balance revenues. as well as spending cuts. but we can get new revenue by making the economy grow. looking at the 20-year data coming you can raise taxes as much as you want but the revenue will be about 18% of our gdp over time. i appreciate all of our panelists helping us to talk through this. to me, this is a situation where like all of these said, let's do not wait to find out. all i will take is for china to say they will not lend us more money, to dump our debt and 80 cents on the dollar, and that faith that keeps this up, and we have to remit that, the only thing keeping our dollar of and what economy we have going is faith in the fact that the other economies are worse off than we are. thank you for helping us talk for is. to the committee staff, i appreciate the work that you have done and the folks who've

answered questions. i hope that we will follow-up with the size of action to solve our problem origin -- to solve our problem. >> we appreciate the thought provided by our panelists. it is clear the real debt limit is upon us now. we have to let credibly to reduce that debt now. we need to get washington out of the way of our recovery now. with this, the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> up next, we will talk with congressman sterilize some -- darrell issa. and later, at the official repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy banning gays from serving openly in the military. a couple of hearings to tell you about on c-span 3. tomorrow, a house panel will examine the economics of developing and drilling part of the arctic national wildlife referee -- refuge. the president of the league of conservation voters is among those testifying. live coverage to 10:00 a.m. eastern very later in the day, also on c-span 3, the chairman of google, eric schmidt,

testifies before the senate judiciary subcommittee. they will investigate whether google's business practices unfairly stifle competition. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. now conversation with congressman carroll darrell issa. he joined us on "washington journal" for 45 minutes.

the postal service's $10 billion loss this year is the failure to make reforms and appropriately right size their work force. >> the administration also underlined a trend that would return overpayments that accrued and the federal employee retirement service back to the postal service. >> the own account -- the president's own accountings showed that there was no overpayment. they must of had some epiphany. the so-called prepayment was mandated in order to ensure that the postal system at all of the reserves necessary for their own health care, and for their own actual retirement. this is an agency that if it under pays now as it shrinks, it clearly will continue to shrink, we will be on the hook for

hundreds of billions of dollars of payments that they should be making today. >> the atwu, the postal worker'' union. >> there's so many postal workers unions, we do not have time on the set to name them. >> it said debt it needs to be released from the requirement to pre-fund. >> that is just disingenuous. we have a lot -- you would not be willing to be in a pension plan that was essentially paying later if we stay in business. more importantly, he is right. this is the only agency to do this. this agency is allowed to gain its own revenue, said its own benefits, which are higher than the rest of the federal workforce. this is also an agency that once that independents and we want them to have it.

the post office is a business unit. it is a $65 billion business unit that is not making a profit primarily because they have not made the changes that they need and how they do business and how many people work there. not that they cannot make a profit or that they are paid too much, they're too many postal workers and they know it. >> that would temporarily forget payments into the benefit system, saving another $10 billion. >> that is kicking the can down the road. this is not a problem that we should sweep under the rug for the postal system is living 65 -- making $65 billion and losing $10 billion because they are not able to make a profit including paying into their own health care. simply having them not pay into their own health care would be light by passing medicare and social security payments and assuming that that takes care of

the problem. >> you have your own bill to take care of this problem. when you expected on the floor? >> we expect the market up in the subcommittee and then on the fifth half. shortly after that. ours is a reform strategy. as a business turnaround. makes the assumption that we want to treat the employees of the postal system fairly but not keep workers that are not needed. the five-day rule, first of all, the post office used to be seven days a week and twice a day during monday and friday. this is that the first time there has been a cutback because it is no longer resonated. it only saves $3.1 billion per year or less. the postal workers themselves score get less. -- score it less. if you do not cut workers, you

will not save anything. >> they had this to say about cutting back the five days a week. >> the postal service's plan to move to a five day delivery is not without significant downside. it would harm many businesses unless the postal service can mitigate the impact. it would force industries ranging from home delivery medication companies to weekly newspapers to seriously consider other options. and one sees private affirms -- and once these private firms are leave the postal service behind, they will not be coming back. and the postal service will suffer another blow to its finances. >> she disagrees with you. >> no, she wants to maintain the

status quo. her proposal as a bailout. she has her own bill. more importantly, she is not wrong that every single reduction in service will affect somebody, it will. i say she stretches the point beyond reasonable doubt medicines. if you need medicine delivered on saturday, you will probably use the special express mail and cannot hope it arrives on saturday in a normal delivery they might happen. all further solutions are temporary. -- all of her solutions are temporary. quite frankly, we either have to be the united states of america at and reset this agency to make money the way it was supposed to, or we are degrees in denial about having too many federal workers. and my proposal does not mandate going from 6 to 5. it has over $10.6 billion worth

of savings out of $18 billion possible. they can choose to continue six day delivery, they have to make some of the other changes. i know that postal is boring, but let me tell you something. 109 million homes in america have a box that they walk out of their house and they go down the street and they get their mail. about 37 million have it delivered to their chute. if you have it delivered to the chute, you're part of $5 billion cost. meaning, we could save more money by simply having people go to a common mailbox rather than someone walking all the way up to their door. that change alone saves more than all the other proposals people are talking about. that is the thinking the post office has to have. >> here is what the postal workers union says about your proposal.

>> first of all, that is not true. the postal service kids a few billion dollars. -- a few million dollars. the postmaster general has said to stop giving us the money and let us run the post office and a profitable way. congress mandates six-day delivery for would have done -- would have been done away with years ago. we haven't budget and they choose to use it to push the

reforms that i think are appropriate. nothing wrong with that. but if you go to our website for the oversight committee, you will find a little pile -- dial or you can decide what you want to cut, and based on independent cbo scoring, you can find how much you can say. people go and figure out how this man -- save $10 billion and they quickly look at things that make sense to them. we want to know what the priorities of people are they go to that. for all the various workers in unions, they can go there and have a figure of how to save $10 billion out of a group of options. there's nothing more important the post office this morning but i will let you drift off. >> solyndra is in the knees. they investigation and they're

back in the knees. solyndra asking the court to ok huge fees for law firms. and then in the "wall street journal," and michael turner of ohio was ask your committee to look into another solar company. what are your plans? >> we agreed to look at this. abroad scandal, and we're not the committee determining solar or wind or hydroelectric, but we are realizing that although this loan was turned around -- turned down in the bush administration, based on the i did that the loan guarantees can take specific winners are losers, we see that as a backdoor way to end up with corruption in government, because people picking winners and losers include henry waxman,

it includes the president and people who come to the white house 16 times and are the largest bungledlers for the president. this is another reason for crony capitalism and using government to pick winners and losers and a capitalist system is dangerous. they will pick winners that they ideologically or because they support their candidacy want to see when. >> are you investigating? >> but not one or two companies, but the system seemed to be in to make an ideologically picking winners and the possibility that this is an and fixable program and you cannot have politicians, people who quite frankly need to raise money to win elections or the people who work for them, they cannot be selecting winners and losers. in the case of the president and in the case of henry waxman,

they're people who saw a link between their campaign contributions and these companies. >> news corp., rupert murdoch company, others have called for you to look into hacking scandal here in the united states and the impact it is said. you say that this is being looked at the justice department. this is being looked at by the senate. but the story is about another unit in another country and it is inappropriate for us to start picking on the media. think progress took your comments and said, just because that just about our man is probing the issue never precludes the house oversight committee charged with overlooking matters from conducting its own inquiry. >> won a left-wing blog wants to make a " on its own merits. fine. but there no allegations with any specificity by an american unit. the justice the berman, no friend of rupert murdoch, is

investigating. third, the democratically controlled senate is investigating. all are we staying aware of it? absolutely. but with the resources you mentioned, if i do not have any kind of a smoking gun, any kind of and on the record credible allegation, in sestak -- in fact i had a left wing blog saying that we should do it, there are a lot of resources that it takes. we are happy to let that evidence that comes along. if we see credible evidence, i want to do it. what i said, and it is important for anyone involved in journalism, we take very seriously looking behind the door of journalistic practices. we have to be very careful. if there is wrongdoing, we want to get to it. but we can go and ask if they were getting oil leaks from the

administration and that is criminal and let's look in it. you can see how they can degrade into constantly investigating. if they employed all wiretaps or any kind of practice in the u.s. the way they obviously did in europe, this would be investigated by the justice department. >> but that was the point was brought up, that the 9/11 victims was not far and matter. > justice department criminal investigators are looking to see if there is any merit to it. that is fine. but i am investigating the justice department. over 2500 weapons in the hands of mexican cartels. the justice department is turning up their nose and saying they are not going to deliver subpoenas. when the justice department wants to do something, let them

do it. when they do not want to prosecute for murder the people who translated these guns that led to brian perry being gunned down in arizona, that is where it has to be. this is perfectly good to monitor and see what happens. i intend to. but i am not going to simply bash fox or c-span because some left-wing blog wants us to. this is the most important issue that comes before us. are we doing what we need to do to ensure the protection of the first amendment? we are watching the justice department to make sure they do a full investigation. at the same time, i want to make sure that what the justice department did wrong is properly exit -- properly investigated. i want to see that when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers in the private market, in this

case the solar panel matter, it is not because there were large contributions given to them. this is not partisan. every chairman has to make this decision. the senate is investigating one thing. senator leahy is a friend of mine. he has completely ignored brian's death. he has let senator grassley twist in the wind with the cooperation. we are referring to fast and furious. it is just an operation they want to phase out. it led to a deadly weapons in the hands of drug cartels. host: i want to talk about regulations your committee is working on. show our viewers what henry waxman has been saying, our guest last week. this is about the house efforts. guest: the republicans call regulations job killers.

that is something they got from their spin-masters. they had to go through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis at the epa and the office of management and budget. they're trying to stop mercury pollution from these old power plants. it is a caustic pollutants that can cause children to die. it can cause those who cause -- it can cause those who live learning disabilities. there is a tremendous price. the costs of regulations are the costs to comply with them. the costs of not doing these regulations are often many multiples of the cost of getting the job done. they want to repeal regulations. it seems to me that is a big deal. they want to repeal the protection of the environment. if the government does not insist that industries do what is necessary to protect the

public from pollution from the sources they control, nobody is going to do it. guest: what i heard is can relax when -- henry waxman. he never heard a regulation he does not like. he is out of step with the president. the president and his administration made the decision to back off on the ozone standard. there are places where the president is beginning to realize is that excess regulation or uncertainty of regulations coming out of nowhere quickly are causing investors not to make investments in america. is henry waxman wrong? do we need to safeguard to make sure we do not roll back the standards for clean air and clean water that have made us better and safer? of course. we have to protect those. at the same time, there have

been plenty of short cuts where there is a requirement for public comment or weighing the cost and the benefit, and it has been bypassed. we agree with the president, not so much henry waxman. host: frank, you are on the air. caller: great show. congressman, i wanted to know something about the fast and furious program. guest: is there a specific question? caller: i know from watching you in the hearings that you are a no b.s. guy. i want your assurance that you will make sure this investigation gets done completely and thoroughly. the atf and robe operators -- i fear people like them.

i am a gun owner in this country. the want to know that when and if you find out how far this went up, are you going to prosecute the people who were involved in this? guest: except for the word prosecute, i would do with you. we will expose and see that if appropriate or prosecuted. we are following this back to figure every place in the system that should have said stop, don't do this. it broke down. when we get to the last and highest, it is because we need to make sure there are assurances in the system this will not happen again. i am a republican, so i always use the example of iran-contra. there should have been people saying do not do this long before ollie north was able to launch this program and control it for months. this was a dumb idea, ill- conceived. the question is why did somebody

bypass the normal safeguards and let it continue. i want to know, senator grassley wants to know, and the mexican attorney general wants to know. she has never been fully briefed. she does not understand why we would do this to her country. she has gone to over 200 separate crime scenes were people were murdered as a result of these weapons. host: on our democratic line, from buffalo, new york. caller: while a member of congress in the majority, did you ever try to initiate an investigation against the interest of dick cheney and george bush, against halliburton or the oil and energy interests the have? guest: i am glad you asked. when we were in the majority under chairman davis, i began investigation of mineral management service that pointed

to this being a dysfunctional agency, one that included partying with lobbyists, doing alcohol and illicit drugs. they were not protecting us in the gulf and could not even account for the money. we were pushing with the aig and against the administration that they needed to fix this organization, several years before the tragedy in the gulf. i am as frustrated as many people are that you cannot always get the reforms you need to prevent disasters in the future when you have a bad government. you are absolutely right. i also led a push to try to deal with these failed leases in the gulf that led to a great many oil and national gas companies paying little or no tax even as the price skyrocketed, well before it was in fashion. how is the weather in my

hometown of cleveland? caller: gloomy. guest: it figured. caller: there are solar panels and the government is stacking the deck against american countries. but we are stacking the deck against all american countries when we allow them to bring in goods. jobs would go through the roof if we put a huge tariff on anything coming in. guest: you are right. i grew up in cleveland and saw the auto, steel, and rubber were king. those jobs have to a great extent been reduced or eliminated. one of our problems is in free trade we try to get a no barrier, no barrier. when we do not have free trade and we have little barriers and they have a lot of barrier, we have not had a good reaction. i believe that getting to know barrier, no barrier is a good idea. but i do not think we should

allow countries where we have little or no tariff to have high tariff on our goods because we do not have a free-trade agreement. that has been missed in the whole discussion. those of us who want free trade should be demanding -- if we are not getting it quickly, we need to raise our barriers to match countries that are closed to fair import of the areas where we are productive and able to compete, whether that is boeing aircraft or financial services, or in fact some of the things being produced in cleveland, ohio. host: i want to give you a chance to respond to this headline from cbs news. a liberal group filed an ethics claim against you. american family voices alleges you use your position of authority to intervene in dealings with merrill lynch.

guest: this is not only frivolous, but it is one of those things where i blog was set up. the a spending hundreds of millions of dollars to attack whoever is the chairman of the committee. right now, it is me. even after "the new york times" had to correct false statements, they come and do something roughly once a week. some group will allege something to the outside ethics panel. here is a summary. goldman sachs -- apparently i had a mutual-fund that bore one of their names. merrill lynch -- apparently, i have a brokerage account there. understand i came to congress having done well in business, having sold my business. my foundation on some stockinette. i have no monetary benefit at all. they made these allegations.

i welcome the allegations. i am considering asking them to go straight to the inside ethics committee to consider it. have i done anything wrong? i am sure there is a typo somewhere on an entry, as far as the various holdings and so on. but i make sure i do not own any individual corporations. i only hold a neutral funds. if those mitchell funds are from goldman sachs, merrill lynch, black rock, or any of these others, that does not make me an investor in them. they have made allegations i had connections with toyota. my only connection is that some of the products i made until 11 years ago would end up being installed in a toyota. i never was a direct vendor. i never got money from them. we make these allegations. that does not make them true. i think this is a wonderful distraction. i appreciate that the left is

going to do it. i think the right is doing that to members. we have an ethics system. i expect the ethics board to do their job. host: are they looking into it? guest: the ioc looks into everyone -- the oce into every one. nancy pelosi created it. i think she regrets it. it has no safeguards. have i been smeared? yes. i have been smeared by "the new york times." the have had to correct it. they make allegations that are not true. >> have you talked to anybody on the inside ethics committee? guest: that would be nobody's business, but as i said i am considering asking it be moved their it would not be -- moved there. it would not be anybody's business.

the ethics committee is supposed to do its evaluation privately and fully. we have that committee for a good reason. anybody can make an accusation. there are 312 million americans. they can make this allegation. this left-wing group is a known supporter of everything i am on the other side of. they are not making it with clean hands. they are making it based on allegations that literally there were part of the organization that created the allegation. if you repeat them even after you have been the bond, it does not make them true. host: we go to a republican in tennessee. caller: i think he should take that as a badge of courage that the left wing has tried to discourage you. i hope you will keep up with your investigation of fast and furious. i would like to look into the gibson guitar company that was raided by the government because of the republican owner doing what the other guitar makers were doing.

they are not looking into the democrat owners. i hope you will look into the pickford act, where they showed up at the door of the black farmer and handed out checks of $50,000, even though actual black farmers said they were lying. there is so much chicago politics coming out of this white house. i hope you will find out who persuaded this general to perjure himself. guest: the pickford situation is one in which we have paid more people than ever existed. that is concerning. if you get 75 climbs out of a 30 passenger bus, you begin to see a pattern. the legitimate payees, we voted for in congress. we're concerned there are more people beyond those who could have been properly impacted. that is a problem. going back to gibson guitar, you

do have to take the opportunity. when my company, that i sold 11 years ago, was resold, gibson guitar was the other bidder. it was interesting. my foundation on the little stock. i watched it. two weeks later, they were rated. i have to tell you that is one where i have looked and said if we need to make sure it is properly investigated, i need to humorously look and say the owners are prominent republicans and made a bid on the company i founded many years ago. i do want to make sure nobody questions whether i am doing this because they were a better on the company. on the other hand, i hope they did not have this rate because they did on my company. i suspect they did not. host: how did they balance that? you have been noted as one of the wealthiest members of congress. you made some money before you came here.

how you balance what you did in the past with what you are trying to do now? guest: first of all, you change. when i was a businessman, i ran my business every day. i was hands-on. that was my style. before i ever sold, before i came to congress, and made the decision to sell the company. i sold it. i was still running it until the day i was sworn in. but i made the disconnect of never being an operational manager. most board meetings i attended on behalf of my foundation i did over the phone. when something else came up, i said goodbye. i left the board when the company was resold, because i thought they have gotten all the transfer knowledge they are going to get. i will miss it. i will miss hearing directly what is going on at the company, so you can understand the troubles people have in the private sector that companies see and government does not.

but i made a decision. we do not own individual stock. the neutral funds we hold our all widely held. -- the mutual funds we hold our all widely held. i take the advice of the brokerage company. the only individual assets i hold our pieces of real estate. we buy real estate that has already been built and do not do any development. does that get me completely around it? no. on the other hand, if i have a choice of being impoverished are having a couple hundred million dollars in the bank, i will deal with the problems i have to stay clear with ethics questions. host: a tweet for you. guest: you have 4000 in the pipeline right now. that is a lot. if you are in almost any

business, one or 100 of those could be affected you. there are growth associations that monitor all these legislations. i think the question is appropriate. it is a combination of volume, but also loosely-written regulations. we have one that is affecting livestock, where congress had an amendment to do what this regulation wants to do and voted it down. now, because it did not prohibit it, they are looking at putting this in. if we voted it down, we should be implicit. congress acted not to do it, rather than thought about it and failed to act. for the regulators to do it later -- that has to be more carefully scrutinized. caller: good morning,

representative. i heard you talk about iran- contra. didn't he have a boss he took the fall for during that scheme? guest: i am not going to judge that. but that was an operation run from the white house that tried to deal with real hostages and let the president believe there were freedom fighters in south america. in my opinion, it broke the law, did a lot of things wrong, and embarrassed us and the israelis in front of iran. everything you could think of is wrong. now we have a situation in which all the way up to the top areas of the justice department, certainly as far as brewer and others who had their fingers on this -- they made a decision to let 2500 weapons walk, including 37 9 millimeter sniper rifles that can kill at 4

miles. those are being used to down aircraft. the have been found at 200 crime scenes. they killed brian terry. somebody has to tell us what they thought this was for. clearly, this program could never work without killing people in order to get the evidence. that is a problem. is it the same as iran-contra? all of the dumb things done by government are a little different. but i want to make sure people understand dumb things have been done under republican presidents and will be done under democratic presidents. we have to say how we prevent them from happening again. i think that is the point you would like to make as well. caller: good morning, representative. i admire you. i want to make a comment about what henry waxman said. he was talking about the mercury in the air, where the mercury was. he basically admitted the

mercury does cause harm to our children and disabled them and causes learning disabilities. i am a strong believer that the vaccines that have mercury in them that they claim they took out is causing all the autism, which my child has. anyway, i will get to my question now. it is a backdoor way of them trying to get rid of the second amendment, which u.n. involvement and everybody tried to take away our second amendment rights, rating gun shows, getting them involved, taking away their license. don't you think there is a problem with that? host: do you agree? guest: we cannot find a common sense reason for doing that. our committee does not look into motives by elimination. but we are trying to ask each of the people involved what did you think you were doing and why did you think it would work.

pretty regularly, they are telling us we thought we would treat them to the scene of the crime. well how did you think you were going to trace it to the scene of the crime without a crime scene where people were killed with these weapons? do we think the administration was trying to substantiate that american guns were ending up in mexico, using this technique to do it? yes. what was the reason? was it to have an assault weapon ban? we are not going to make any kind of assessment there. what we are saying is this was stupid enough that should never be allowed to happen again, regardless of the motives. to your mercury question, a senior member of my committee, dan burton, has been working very hard to make sure heavy metals are out of our vaccines. he also has been struck by autism in his family that may be the result of heavy metals. i share the idea that as coal is burned, heavy metals including mercury come out of it. we have to reduce that amount.

the goal is to continue reducing it. where henry waxman and i have a difference is i am saying let us do it in a way where we can clean up our energy source. let us not do it in order to move an agenda toward solar panels. that is where i think there is a balance. the people of michigan enjoy fuel from almost every source, one of them being called. we have to recognize that is how to successfully manufacture the things you do in michigan. host: another tweet for you. guest: this is one of the things we have been investigating and are continuing to investigate. a number of my subcommittee chairman are regularly holding

hearings. we are working with a commission, making sure this was created. you are absolutely right. we have not done a great job in afghanistan and iraq of keeping money from getting to the wrong people. in some cases, our committee has shown the money probably went to the people we are fighting, in other words our own enemies. we will stay on it. we will do it on a bipartisan basis. host: herman is an independent in california. guest: that is not fair. you are in my district. caller: i appreciate your non partisan views, and also your operations regarding oversight. i am going to add one more item to your plate. this item is regarding our giving away of the california

registered taxpayer. i have been one since 1983. we are giving away $9,000 for every illegal child in the united states under 17. i am not sure how many illegal children there are or how many illegal adult recipients there are, but we are giving approximately $40 billion away for illegal children or their parents in the united states, plus a second item would allow the dependent status for residents of canada, and very few, and that would be equal to $500 per person or more each. guest: i also serve on judiciary. we could hold all of the hearings in discovery and oversight to find out we are funding a lot of federal funds

to parents, children, and so on that are here unlawfully, that are here as undocumented aliens. the challenge for the judiciary committee, the house and senate, and the president, the challenge is sensible reform that provides a legal front door that is sufficient and closes the back door. it has been one of the frustrations in congress. i am not a lawyer. i came to judiciary in no small way because i hope to work on reforming our failed system and making america a place that welcomes people to the front door and closes the back door. i share his concern. my district does not touch the border, but i have border checkpoints where they will stop you because it is so rampant the have put major checkpoints on the interstate 5 and 15. he feels that frustration. so do i.. but the answer is not more investigations. it is for congress and the

president to act strongly, something we are not seeing now. i take the blame in the house. the senate should take the blame. the president should do more. host: a phone call from a democrat in milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: how are you doing? guest: i am fine. what is on your mind? caller: you had an earlier conversation about something that happened with the murdoch company. you said it is not a major concern right now, and to keep things in perspective with the economy the way it is right now. guest: it was not a major concern because a left wing blog is being checked by law enforcement. they have a lot of ability to get information. if there is any truth to it, it

would be a major concern. if it was going on in other news organizations in america, it would be a major concern. we are very concerned to make sure privacy is maintained. but we were on the question of did it happen. caller: my understanding is that england is investigating the situation. they admitted to doing wrong. if you commit a crime in england, overseas, and the type of crime, that means if you come over here your mentality is going to change how you do business? guest: it is a valid question. british people broke the law in britain. that has been investigated for a couple of years. it has been an investigation in britain. they went through a process. they have had before parliament rupert murdoch and his son. they have them under oath.

if there is an oath -- if there is a connection with u.s. personnel doing things, justice will act. if there is an action in the u.s., justice will act. but this is a separate corporation, a tabloid. the murdoch's did not own it at its founding. they bought it. we could open an investigation of every news event where it is clear information was gotten that was not gotten to the front door. we would be investigating maybe not c-span, but all the major news services. they all have secret sources and leeks and so on. a whistle-blower tells a news agency something and the report on it. we have had a highly classified documents become public on the pages of major newspapers. there is a line we draw. is there a credible allegation? and what is the best way to

investigate it? right now, we believe the justice department is doing their job. host: i know you have been critical that this comes from a liberal bloc, but they assert this has something to do with you saying you trust news corporation because you know rupert murdoch. guest: i do not believe i said that. i do not know rupert murdoch. i believe i met him on one occasion. david murdock, who is no relative to him, was there. i do not know rupert murdoch. my job is not trust. the reagan axiom of trust but verify -- i have 16 presidents and two paintings on my wall, eight republicans and eight democrats. here are 16 people you cannot trust. and you recognize every one of those presidents. my job is not to trust the

administration. my job is to investigate it. the g in my committee is government. look at government failing and wrongdoing. we investigate the justice department. what can be behind trying to pierce the first amendment? the liberal group would be furious if i were doing the same thing they want me to do with msnbc or huffington post. confidential sources exist at every newspaper and magazine and television. i realize that i may not like the fact that things like like a sieve that should not. but i think it is very important. let us let the justice department look into one allegation and not let every other block from the allocation of one group, not substantiate it with any evidence, and say

this person did it, and see where it goes. let us not create a story where there is not one. >> on tomorrows "washington journal" an update into cylinders. -- into solyndra investigations. charlie rangel talks about the debt reduction plan. later, the co-authors of an article in "the weekly standard" about ways to protect the environment and cut government programs. >> in my opinion, i think the bounds of academic freedom have been pushed too far. >> she suggests the job for

life in pediment mentality needs to go. >> there are basically professors of cooking who have tenure now. when pressed, a professor toeing the party line will say we need something like 10 years of security studies so you can talk about immigration, even though it is controversial. somebody in nutrition needs to be able to something controversial about obesity. >> that and why you will not get the college education you paid for. >> now we will take you to a discussion on the future of libya. we will hear first from secretary-general been key moon, and the president of the trans national council on libya. from new york, this is 30 minutes.

>> >> excellencies, distinguished heads of state and government, president of the national transitional council of libya, distinguished ministers, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participating in this important meeting. this important meeting. fo libya, this is a historic day. last friday, the general assemb of the united nations ovwhelmingly voted to accept the credentials of the new libyan leadership. toy we are honored to formally recommend them into the international community and to the first major meeting at the united nations. president jalil, i am sure you

saw your new flag this morning flying proudly outside this building. i am pleased to note -- is in this room as well. you and the people of libya, we offer our congratulations and best wishes for the future. for the past seven months, you have fought courageously for your funmental rights and freedoms. women and young people were in the vanguard in the political and social and economic life of the country. as you look to the future, i want you to know that the united nations will support you in every way we can. excellencies, the security council and several regional organizations methe challenge

with the speed and decisive action to protect the libyan people from violence. today we must once again respond with such speed and decisive action. this time, to consolidate peace democracy. last friday, the security council authorized e establishment of the united nations mission in libya. this effort must be well coordinated, coherent, and comprehensive. it must be fully consistent with libyan needs, parties, and the libyan context. traditional -- the transitional council has outlined the needs in these are. constitutional reform, public security, human rights, rule of

law, equality, reconciliation, construction, and economic recovery. my new special representative and his team are already deploying. meanwhile, u.n. humanitarian engineers have been on the ground for several weeks, at distributing food and medical aid and assting libyan authorities to deal with critical threats to the country 's applies. needless to say, the challenges are large. the first priority must be peace and security. fighting continues in some parts of the country. elsewhere, however, we are encouraged that so many libyans from so many communities have laid down their arms and are working together.

we urge those tt have not done so to join them. we can also be very encouraged by the able leadership demonstrated so far by president jalil and many others. they have embraced the central principles, the principles of tolerance, moderation, reconciliation, human rights, and rule of law, and in particular, the rights of women and migrant workers. ese are the foundation stones of any modern democratic society. if they -- then other workers can proceed smoothly -- and restoring public services, creating new institutions of government and enduring law and order. excellencies, distinguished heads of state of government,

ladies and gentleman, let me close once aga with our congratulations and best wishes for the new libya. your country has great potential. it's industrious and resilience people, its resources and strategic location -- enormous efforts of the happiness and prosperity of the libyan people. we look forward to working closely with you and i think you very much. and i thank you very much for your leadership and your efforts for establishing the peace and civil rights of libya. i now give the floor to his excellency mr. jalil, president councilransitional of libya as i look forward to the chair and the needs of the libyan people. you have the floor.

>> in the name of god, compassionate and merciful,,ban ki-moon, secretary general of the united nations, excellencies, president of state and government, ladies and gentleman, peace be upon you all. first i would like to extend my thanks to the united nations and to the international community as well as the league of arab states, the african union, the european union, and the united states of america, who is hosting this meeting today under the auspices of the united nations, for all the efforts to have all deployed for the success of the libyan

revolution, with which the people look forward to peace and security in our region. i would also like to express our sincere thanks and areciation to his excellency the secretary general for this generous in mission of fighting -- generous initiative of inviting us to this meeting which he called for, and i would like to thank all states that have sported us in our crisis, for most of whic qatar, the united aram m. terrance, lebanon, and jordan, and lebanon, which has endorsed the famous resolution. we would also like to thank the united states of america, united kingdom, france, italy, turkey, and allembers of the alliance and those whose names i have not mentioned, i would like to apologize to them, but extend to them all the critics and thinks

of the libyan people for all the political, economic, and military support that you have given us, without whi we would not have been able to achieve victy face of such a huge amount of weaponry with which gaddafi used against his people. yet night did nations has played a huge role in the -- the united nations has played a huge role in the history of libya. when the 17th of february revolution began, the united nations once again ok its responsibility in outline accord responsibility of protecting civilians and freezing of assets to the two famous resolutions through which all necessary measures were taken to provide the protection for the civilians. which in part has enabled us to

achieve the first part of our victory, since gaddafi is still in libya and still possesses some resources tt represent a threat, not only to libyans, but to the international comnity as a whole. your excellency, the secretary general, ladies and gentlemen, the libyan people have taken great pride in liberating its territories and in realizing its aspirations for which it rose up on the 17th of february. the road before us is still long, and there are many challenges at many levels in the short and long term, either because of the presence of gaddafir because of challenges related to launching the

developmental process to rebuild and reconstruct the state. our needs are many. we have lost 25,000 marchers. there are double those numbers of wounded. there are many needs and requirements that necessitate extreme priority right away. events to which the country h gone through over the last three months and the liberation of tripoli got stability and security have spread over in a manner that proved that the libyan people bore its responsibili. the country, particularly the tripoli, have not witnessed in the act of retaliation accept within a very small limits, and the perpetrators of such retaliatory actions did not

generally have the same nationalistic spirit of the entire of libyan people. ntc has pledged to stand up to such retaliatory acts and to punish their perpetrators. the libyan people have positively responded to the cost of the ntc this regard, and none of the former government -- for officials of the gaddafi government have been exposed to any -- many of them had been arrested and are secure and have been ordered to stay at their homes or they are held at certain locations. some have been released after preliminary investigations proved that they did not commit any illegal actions. the libyan authorities will bring to justice all accused of the gaddafi regime in a just

trial and we will work for the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation over the coming period. we have already established committees for that purpose that have traveled to different parts of libya to start a process of reconciliation that will include all the elements of the libyan people after total liberation is realized, and we intend to seek support from the international community in this regard mr. secretary general, made his and settlement, we believe the real victory of our revolution cannot be represented by the simple act of are arresting some officials or taking retaliatory actions against them. rather, through establishing the basic principles of our just islamic religion, the spit of forgiveness, tolerance, and

coexistence, and all human values to which we devote ourselves for the good of the entire people and for the proper protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. we would like to assure everyone that all migrants come out all foreigners living in lia will be dealt with in accordance with international law, which international humanitarian law, and we will only take measures to put an end to the flow of illegal workers, no more, no less. in conclusion, i would like to state that although we are a rich country, we require assistance, more pleased to be treated as all other members of the united nations. we have greatly contributed to many human that syrian

organizations over the years -- humanitarian organizations over the years, and the time has come for us to expect such assistance from the united nations. far from the frozen assets of libya, since this is their right of theibyan people to receive such assistance from the international organizations, i would also like to reassure everyone that libya will be a vital stake, a vibrant state of polls the principles of security and peace in the region, a state that respects human rights and establishes a nation in which libyans can govern themselves and seek official position through elections. libya also reassures everyone that we will protect civilians

always. we thank you very much for your support. we thank you for holding this important meeting. we agree to all those countries that have supported in our crisis a support that the libyan people will forever remember. peace be upon you all. >> i thank president jalil for his statement. he has provided clarity and the foundation upon which we shall anchor our support and assistance to libya in rebuilding the country and coordinating international efforts. for our part, let me again reassure him and his people that the united nations is a fully -- is fully ready and capable of coordinating our international efforts. exllencies, i now give the

floor to the president of the united states, his excellency, are obama. you have the floor. >> good morning. mr. secretary general, on behalf of us all, thank you for convening this meeng to address a task that must be the work of all of us -- supporting the people of libya as they build a future tt is free and democratic and prosperous. and i want to thank president jalil for his remarks and for all that he and prime minister jibril have done to help libya reach this moment. to all the heads of state, to all the countries represented here who have done so much over the past several months to ensure this day could come, i want to say thank you, as well. today, the libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation.

after four decades of darkness, they can walk the streets, free from a tyrant. they are making their voices heard -- in new newspapers, and on radio and television, in public squares, and on personal blogs. they're launching political parties and civil groups to shape their own destiny and secure the universal rights. and here at the united nations, the new flag of a free libya now flies among the community of nations. make no mistake -- credit for the liberation of libya belongs to the people of libya. it was libyan men and women -- and children -- who took to the streets in peaceful protest, who faced down the tanks and endured the snipers' bullets. it was libyan fighters, often outgunned and outnumbered, who fought pitched battles, town by

town, block by block. it was libyan activists -- in the underground, in chat rooms, in mosques -- who kept a revolution alive, even after some of the world had given up hope. it was libyan women and girls who hung flags and smuggled weapons to the front. it was libyans from countries around the world, including my own, who rushed home to help, even though they, too, risked brutality and death. it was libyan blood that was spilled and libya's sons and daughters who gave their lives. and on that august day -- after all that sacrifice, after 42 long years -- it was libyans who pushed their dictator from power. at the same time, libya is a lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one. i said at the beginning of this

process, we cannot and should not intervene every time there is an injustice in the world. yet it's also true that there are times where the world could have and should have summoned the will to prevent the killing of innocents on a horrific scale. and we are forever haunted by the atrocities that we did not prevent, and the lives that we did not save. but this time was different. this time, we, through the united nations, found the courage and the collective will to act. when the old regime unleashed campaign of terror, threatening to roll back the democratic tide sweeping the region, we acted as united nations, and we acted swiftly -- broadening sanctions, imposing an arms embargo. the united states led the effort to pass a historic resolution at the security council authorizing all necessary measures to protect

the libyan people. and when the civilians of benghazi were threatened with a massacre, we exercised that authority. our international coalition stopped the regime in its tracks, and saved countless lives, and gave the libyan people the time and the space to prevail. important, too, is how this effort suceded -- thanks to the leadership and contributions of many countries. the united states was proud to play a decisive role, especially in the early days, and then in a supporting capacity. but let's remember that it was the arab league that appealed for action. it was the world's most effective alliance, nato, that's led a military coalition of nearly 20 nations. it's our european allies -- espeally the united kingdom and france and denmark and norway -- that conducted the vast majority of air strikes protecting rebels on the ground.

it was arab states who joined the coalition, as equal partners. and it's been the united nations and neighboring countries -- including tunisia and egypt -- that have cared for the libyans in the urgent manitarian effort that continues today. this is how the international community should work in the 21st century -- more nations bearing the responsibility and the costs of meeting global challenges. in fact, this is the very rpose of this united nations. so every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping libyans reclaim their country. it was the right thing to do. w, even as we speak, remnants of the old regime continue to fight. difficult days are still ahead.

but one thing is clear -- the future of libya is now in the hands of the libyan people. for just as it was libyans who tore down the old order, it will be libyans who build their new nation. and we've come here today to say to the people of libya -- just as the world stood by you in your struggle to be free, we will now stand with you in your struggle to realize the peace and prosperity that freedom can bring. in this effort, you will have a friend and partner in the united states of america. today, i can announce that our ambassador is on his way back to tripoli. and this week, the american flag that was lowered before our embassy was attacked will be raised again, over a reopened american embassy. we will work closely with the new u.n. support mission in libya and with the nations here today to assist the libyan people in the hard work ahead.

first, and most immediately -- security. so long as the libyan people are being threatened, the nato- led mission to protect them will continue. and those still holding out must understand -- the old regime is over, and it is time to lay down your arms and join the new libya. as this happens, the world must also support efforts to secure dangerous weapons -- conventional and otherwise -- and bring fighters under central, civilian control. for without security, democracy and trade and investment cannot flourish. second -- the humanitarian effort. the transitional national uncil has been working quickly to store water and electricity and food supplies to tripoli. but for many libyans, each day is still a struggle -- to recover from their wounds, reunite with tir families, and return to their homes. and even after the guns of war fall silent, the ravages of war will continue.

so our efforts to assist its victims must continue. in this, the united states -- the united nations wilplay a key role. and along with our partners, the united states will do our part to help the hungry and the wounded. third -- a democratic transition that is peaceful, inclusive and just. president jalil has just reaffirmed the transitional national council's commitment to these principles, and the united nations will play a central role in coordinating international support for this effort. we all know what is needed -- a transition that is timely, new laws and a constitution that uphold the rule of law, political parties and a strong civil society, and, for the first time in libyan history, free and fair elections. free and fair elections.