now, in this house joint resolution 1, it has another provision that says total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18% of economic output of the united states, less 2/3 of each house of -- unless 2/3 of each house of congress shall provide for specific outlays bf this amount. section 3. the limit on the debt of the united states held by the public shall not be increased unless 3/5 of the whole number of each house shall provide by law for such an increase by roll call vote. that means in order to increase the debt ceiling, you can't do it with more than 50%. that requires 3/5 to raise the debt ceiling. section 4 is a requirement to

transmit to congress a budget for the united states government that is a proposed government that for that fiscal year, total outlays do not exceed total receipts. we have seen with the senate previously those that can just choose to ignore that, not because it's not a matter of law, the law requires the senate to pass a budget. they've chosen to ignore that, to violate the law, they have violated the law. continue to refuse to follow the law. but unfortunately it's another loophole in the law even though they're required to pass a budget and the senate's failed to do so for going on 1,000 days now. there is no enforcement mechanism of what we do to the senate, the senate violates the law but now submitting a budget.

so we've seen games get played. the games continue. now, in this house joint resolution 1, section 5 says a bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless 2/3 of the whole number of each house shall abide by law for such increase by roll call vote. in other words, a supermajority is required in the house and the senate in order to raise taxes. of course, section 6 makes an exception for war. it says the congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year which a declaration of war is in effect. it's a war, anticipation because we know in times of war we have to do whatever has to

be done in order to provide for the common defense and to ward off those who would destroy this country. so i think those are all important. but now we're going to be taking up something that is so important to the country, a balanced budget amendment. and i believe when i was elected in 2004 a balanced budget amendment is very important to become part of the constitution through the amendment process. and i still believe that. my beliefs have not changed. but in my over 6 1/2 years in congress now, it's become very clear to me that unless we have a constitutional cap on spending the house and senate will not be able to control

themselves. and all we need to do is look at who's paying the taxes now. we're told somewhere between 50% and 53% of all the adult americans will pay all of the income tax. we're now told over 40% of american adults not pay any income tax. when a country has close to 50% who were not paying any income tax, then you're always going to have a situation where there is a cry among those who are getting money from the government and not paying money in, not to -- not to cut spending but to raise taxes. and i feel like having a cap on

spending is so important. but even though i really appreciate and think a supermajority to raise taxes is a good idea, i think it would be ok to let that go. if we have a cap on spending, the provision that would say it takes 3/5 to raise the debt ceiling, if we have a balanced budget amendment and a cap on spending, i think we can let those go. but i have become increasingly convinced. if we don't have a cap, a maximum amount of spending and the best way we've seen, the best proposals have indicated a percentage of our gross domestic product is the best thing to take a percentage of

and make that the maximum amount the government can spend. if we don't do that i've seen repeatedly whether the republicans are in charge or the democrats are in charge we can't control spending. no better example than what's been going on lately. we have a president in the white house who has threatened that he'll veto a bill that makes cuts that he doesn't want. he's threatened to veto a bill that tries to rein in the extra $12 trillion of spending that he immediately came in and spent. good grief. it would seem that since this body under control of speaker

pelosi for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 that we had spent more money in history that we could at least go before the big wall street bailout, october, 2008, we could at least go back to 2007 spending. that was spending that was created by the liberal congress headed by speaker pelosi. surely we can go back to 2007 before we added an extra $1 trillion and then president obama added $1 trillion and then we keep adding that extra $1 trillion that we didn't spend in 2007. it wasn't actually spent until fiscal year 2009 because it was so late in 2008. we'd already passed october 1. we're in 2009 spending. why couldn't we go back to 2008

levels of spending before we added an extra $1 trillion, before this president ran up spending to about $1.5 trillion more than we were bringing in in receipts? it just seems so grossly ridiculous to have a president come in and increase, say we're going to have this big, over $1 trillion in added spending we never had before and, by the way, if you dare try to cut any of this spending i am going to veto the bill. and so we don't cut spending. we had the biggest election last november since the 1930's. over 80 new republicans coming into the house of representatives, having met them, gotten to know them, these are good people. these are good members of congress.

they came with the right motivation. they were elected by people who led the right motivation. they want to see this country thrive and not just survive but really prosper and protect liberty. they were driven by those beliefs. they were driven by the same desire that i had that motivated me to run for congress in 2004. i do not want to be a part of the generation that gave our children a lesser country than we inherited. it's why so many of us work so hard. we don't want to be that generation. this country could go on for 200 more years and still be the greatest, freest land in the history of the world, but not with the level of spending that we have embraced. so i've come to see when you look at what's happened with

that wave election coming in and you go back and look at our conservative republican pledge made by wonderful people that i love working with, i didn't write that pledge but i agreed to it. and it said we were going to return spending to prestimulus, prebailout levels. we promised that. we pledged that. not only that, we said, here's our mark, we promise you we are going to cut at least $100 billion in the first year. if you put us in office. that's our pledge. and everybody that took that pledge meant it. and then we have a wave election after that pledge, and wonderful, wonderful people came into this body with the intention of keeping the pledge

. and we got to the spring of this year -- well, actually, we got to december. speaker pelosi still in charge. and there was more money given away by congress in december than any lame-duck session in the history of the country. after the most conservative wave election since the 1930's. actually, that wasn't a conservative election back in the 1930's, but this was a wave election. powerful majority of americans wanted restraint on spending and with wonderful people that were elected and sent up here, we had the biggest giveaway last december of any lame-duck session in history. and still with the best intentions in the first of this

year and we still knew, ok. well, just forget about december because we are going to keep our pledge. and then some realized, gee, we're up against an awful lot of people that don't pay any income tax and there aren't any cuts in spending. we may not get enough in the senate to do what we promised so let's do a compromise. and it was the best of intentions. there was nothing ill-intended about working out a compromise with the senate, but the way it should have worked is for this house to pass a bill that they believe was appropriate, this house to pass a bill that cut $100 billion off of spending and then wait and demand the senate to pass something. the senate just seem to have trouble passing anything. it's why the president is 50% right when he says this is a

do-nothing congress because the senate has been doing nothing. they have got our bills piled up down there led by abled leadership in the house. they don't want to pass them. they don't want to create those jobs. might look good for the republicans who were driving the agenda. that's why they are going to let them die down there, unless the american public makes it clear you need to pick up those republican bills in the senate and pass them or there is a whole over 20 democratic senators that won't come back come january, 2013. maybe that will motivate them. but in the meantime we should have forced them to pass something and then it would go to conference and then a compromise would be worked out. that's how the system was intended to work. and then we could say to our constituents, if republicans

have majority, you see what the house passed. this is what we believe. we passed what we said we would. and if you want this to become law as we passed it in the house, you have to give us majority in the senate and we'll do that. as it is, all we have is a majority in the house. this is the only place we can pass it. we had to work out a compromise in the conference committee, and that's why we got what we did, but in the meantime you want the house pass before the compromise give us the senate next year and you'll get it. that's the way the system was designed to work. and it allows the senate to say, look, see all these giveaway programs that we passed here in the senate, we had to drop some of these giveaway programs in the conference committee because be -- these fiscal republicans couldn't pass them in the house. if you want more and more giveaways like we're passing in

the senate, then give us majority in the house and we'll give you more giveaway programs. that's how the system is supposed to work. the american people can say either they want a majority in the house to have more giveaway programs like the senate has passed or they could say, we want more fiscal responsibility as we found in the house by virtue of the bills they passed. . the problem has been we have been negotiating with the senate to see what we think they might pass and then shoot a target that they say they might pass in the senate rather than passing what we believe in in the house. this summer, we passed, cut, cap and balance. overall, it was a good bill, and it passed. we should have demanded that the

senate pass something that would go to conference committee with our cut, cap and balance and we work out a compromise from there. we passed the debt ceiling increase that had been negotiated and what the senate said they might be willing to pass and we got it passed. my point being, we keep passing bills that really haven't cut spending. and with a big group coming in and we couldn't control spending? we couldn't get a majority to pass it in the house to cut $100 billion in spending? what are the hopes in the future? the time has come for a balanced budget amendment with a cap on spending. and i think that cap on spending is so important to help future

congresses help this country last. i think it is so important, i think we can forget about the 2/3 to raise taxes. i think we could forget about some of the other provisions if we just have those two things, a balanced budget requirement, outlays do not exceed the receipts and receipts don't include borrowed money, that's number one. and number two, a cap on spending. we have seen time and time again , we haven't been able to control spending even with the incredible good representatives that were added last november. with regard to the debt ceiling and bringing down the spending, good grief, we added over $1 trillion, spending nearly $1.5

trillion we are bringing in in receipts and can't find $100 billion to cut from that? this house, this year, had agreed to a 5% cut in our legislative budgets. we did that to ourselves. most of america has no idea about that. then for next year, we're going to have a little over a 6% cut in our legislative budget. most america has no idea about that either. but we did it, and the only way that's going to really make a difference in the deficit is if we make that demand of every other agency, every other department, every other amount of discretionary spending, we say, look, we did it to ourselves that gives us the morm authority to say, you cut your budget 5% this year and 6% the year after that and going to bring down the 11% over the next two years and we have met the

requirements that was put upon the supercommittee. and you see some problems with the so-called supercommittee. there are some great people on there. the people that were put on there from the house and senate, republicans, they are friends and they are good people. and pat toomey, not a more conservative guy anywhere, but he was willing to have a framework that actually raised revenue like the demand made by the senate democrats and the president. and some of us were saying, oh. he was willing to do that and looked like the democrats were so impressed -- gee, this is great. i tell you what, this may be the deal that works. and then they went back and talked to their democratic leadership, whoever that is and they came back and said we can't work out a deal here. that should have made it clear that when the agreement was made

to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from our national security and at the same time cut hundreds of billions of dollars from medicare that some people on the other side of the aisle realized if we go into next year's election and the only cuts to medicare have been the $500 billion that obamacare did last year that democrats did against the people of america, we are going to be toast. so if we could have this failure of the supercommittee and all of this doesn't work out and hundreds of billions cut from medicare, we can say the republicans did it, instead of obamacare that aarp thought was a good idea. forget about that. if we have those cuts this year, we'll blame the republicans. mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker has 55 seconds left. mr. gohmert: let me finish up by

saying, we need a cap on spending and in respect for the veterans, let me finish with a prayer from george washington since my time is so short. washington's prayer, almighty god, we make it an honest prayer keep the united states in its holy protection and climb the hearts of the citizens including particularly and entertain a brotherly affection for one another and fellow citizens in the united states at-large and brethren who served in the field. i'm a veteran. didn't smb in combat. but thank god for those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our liberties. we should not squander it. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 398, an act to amend the immigration and nationality act to toll during active duty service abroad in the armed forces. the period of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would be pleased to recognize the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i move that we do now 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. extend their remarks. stands

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule, house resolution 463. the rule provides for consideration to an important piece of legislation, h.r. 822. the national right to carry press ross it act of 2011. i'm proud to sponsor this rule which provides for a structured amendment process that will allow members to have a thorough debate on a wide variety of relevant and germane amendments to h.r. 822. we have allowed 10 amendments

to this bill, two republican amendments, and eight democratic amendments. even as contense -- contentious bill, a bill that would be easy to shut down the process, we are not only allowing amendments, but those debated on the floor, the vast majority are democratic amendments. we did this not because it was the easy thing to do, we did it because it was the right thing to do. it brought transparency to the debate and it is in keeping with the promises of the republican party made to the american people for a freer, more open process. madam speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, i spent my entire career as a cop. the last 10 years of sheriff in hernando county, florida. during my 38 years in law enforcement, i found disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. if anything, all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from violent criminals.

although i know this just from my experience, research backs up the claim. for example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. in my home state of florida, only .01% of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked because of firearms crimes committed by permit holders. additionally, evidence indicates the crime declines in states with rights to carry laws. since florida became a right to carry state in 1987. florida's violent total crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58% respectively. because of this evidence as well as my firsthand experience, i'm a proud defender of our second amendment right, ensuring the right that people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. my history as a law enforcement officer is also why i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 822, the national right to carry rest

prosity act of 2011. rr 822 is a good bipartisan bill which enhances constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. today if i drive from my home state of florida into georgia, georgia recognizes my florida driver's license. it's still valid even once i cross the state line. h.r. 822 requires states to recognize each other's legally issued concealed carry permits in the same way. this legislation would take a comprehensive approach to helping law-abiding citizens navigate the patchwork of state concealed carry laws. 822 does not, let me repeat, does not create a national concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized standard for carry permit. h.r. 822 respects states' abilities to create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting processes. i'm sure that you'll hear arguments from my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle saying that 822, h.r. 822, somehow makes it easier for people to get a gun. let me assure you that, again, this is not the case. this legislation cost not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a gun, nor does it relax any of the state's current permitting laws. during my nearly 40 years as a cop, i learn you just can't talk about guns. when you are talking about gun crime, you need to look at two distinct classes of guns, they are illegal guns and legal guns. i can tell you as a cop you don't worry about the legal guns. the guns that people brought from an authorized source, that they are registered and proper authorities. they took the necessary class to learn how to use them responsibly, and they got their legal concealed carry permit. in my experience you worry about the illegal guns. guns that are somebody purposefully brought them off the radar.

either because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they are going to use them for an illegal purpose. h.r. 822 doesn't get into that difference. what it does is ensures that a legal gun owner doesn't accidentally break the law simply because they brought their fully permitted gun to another state. this legislation simply gives peace of mind to americans traveling across state lines with legally registered concealed firearm knowing they can practice their constitutional right to bear arms. again i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 822 and support its passage. with that i encourage all my colleagues 20 vote yes on the rule, yes on the underlying legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker,

first of all let me rise in opposition to this yet -- this restrictive rule. yet another restrictive rule. a lot of good amendments were not made in order and members do not have the right to offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule for that reason. madam speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is being brought to the floor by this extreme republican leadership. a few weeks ago this house debated an abortion bill. that's months after we considered legislation to defund planned parenthood. this republican leadership has tried hard to overturn the clean air act and clean water act simply because the corporate constituency demands it. and now we are turning to guns. we are about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in the united states. in fact, we are considering a bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. yet what do americans want most of all right now? are they screaming about -- for a lengthy debate on abortion

issues? do they want us debating whether or not we need to reaffirm our national motto? are they clamoring for more lenient gun laws? no, madam speaker. the american people want jobs. -j -- j-o-b-s. maybe they are covering their eyes and plugging their ears hoping this crisis will magically disappear. that may work for a 6-year-old who is scared of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country. our unemployment rate is 9%. there are just under 14 million unemployed americans. millions more are earning less now than they were before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with a choice to take a lower paying job or face unemployment. what's the republican response to this problem? not a jobs bill. in fact the republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this congress. what then is their response to the jobs problem? surprise, surprise, it's a gun bill.

madam speaker, what are we doing here? this is nuts. this isn't what the american people sent us here to do. the irony is many of the new republicans who were allegedly sent here because of their opposition of federal encroachment on states' rights, here we are debating a bill that imposes the federal role on states even undermines state's laws. this is crazy in normal times, madam speaker. it's on crazier today. unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto we debate add few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on people's lives. madam speaker, people will be hurt because of this legislation. people in fact may die because of this bill. don't take my word for it, look at the facts. the bill obliterates state and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons. it eliminates the state's correction to honor another state's permits. it requires states with responsible restrictions like my home state of massachusetts to allow people with permits from states with lax laws to bring concealed weapons into those states.

simply it allows a person to bring a hidden loaded gun into a state where under today's laws they are currently ineligible to carry a concealed weapon. now, there are reasons states don't allow certain people to carry concealed weapons, and each state is different. my home state of massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems. as well as people who have not completed firearm safety training. people who do not have a good character or those who are under the age of 21. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record following my remarks a letter from the massachusetts secretary of public safety and security in opposition to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: under this bill a person convicted of spousal abuse in one state could go to a second state for a concealed weapon permit. when they get that pr mitt this bill allow that is felon to bring their weapon into massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for concealed weapon permit under current massachusetts laws. my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this

bill is necessary. that more guns mean less crime. that people need to be able to protect themselves. . well, mayors against illegal guns strongly opposes this bill because it makes our cities less, not more, less safe. the boston and new york city mayor is made up of six00 mayors, representing law-abiding gun owners and keeping guns out of dangerous people. mayor tom binido has been a champion under this. the international association of chiefs police oppose this. the police foundation, the national latino police officers association and the national organization of black law enforcement executives. in fact, not only does the american bar association oppose this bill, so does the

association of prosecuting attorneys. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record following my remarks the statement by the mayors against illegal guns in opposition to 822. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker,, in addition to the mayor, we are part of the stop hand gunned violence. the founder, john rosenthal, it keeps our citizens safe. massachusetts has the most comprehensive and gun violence prevention laws and lowest fatality rate of any urban industrial state and second lowest overall behind hawaii. every day more than 150 americans are shot, and 83 die from gun violence in the united states. a child under 20 years old dies from gun violence every three hours. eight kids every single day. we could fill fenway park three times with -- three times over with 110,000 kids under 20 years old killed by guns in the

past 30 years. and there's still no national law requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the u.s. in fact, in 33 states there is no background check requirement or even proof of i.d. for private combun sales. and today we're going to make it easier -- we will make it even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons. massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. we should be working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation like this. madam speaker, federal preemption of massachusetts law will only result in more innocent and largely preventable gun deaths in my home state. the same holds true for nearly every state in the union. preempting state gun laws will make this country less safe. i cannot and will not support legislation that will make our states and neighborhoods less safe. madam speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, if we want to make our be neighborhoods safer, i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us,

you know, and bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. let's provide people with jobs and economic security. let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are struggling in poverty. that's what we should be doing. not debating a bill that makes it easier to conceal weapons. i ask my colleagues to vote none the rule and the final bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, you know, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about jobs bills. we are not talking about it right now. but if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that have passed out of this body that are sitting in the senate today. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i am proud to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

this is serious piece of work for me today because less than a year ago one of our colleagues from arizona was shot in the head while she was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. the mayhem was awful. a little 19-year-old girl named christina taylor green, baseball fan, who just came to see her congresswoman, was killed. and by all counts an extraordinary federal judge died. as well as some of gabby's staff. numbers of people wounded. and yet the only person ever considered by this house would be the guy and his right to have that gun. what about the rights for the rest of us? are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the street to try to escape the bullets? what happens to us? where are our -- where is the amendment for us that we can be safe? the statistics of people being killed in places of worship,

the rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are mentally ill. and i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from "the new york times" of how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to regain their gun rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: now, when are we going to reinstate in this house the automatic weapons ban? and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve no purpose at all in a civilized society? why don't we hold a guilty individual -- in the face of iphones and androids, surely that is more important job for us to do here than what we are doing to say you can carry a concealed weapon anywhere you can go because that's who we

are? apparently the republican majority wants that. based on today's bill, they think it's important to pass legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public carrying, easier to carry a loaded gun to an nfl stadium, easier to carry a gun into your supermarket or temple or church. what in the world -- how can we ever explain that to people who have had gun deaths in their family? the horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped with the passage of today's bill and no one's made safer by allowing guns into public space. but since last january congress has not considered a single piece of legislation. it would make it harder for a mentally ill individual to get a gun. we have done nothing at all to make sure another nightmare like the one in tucson doesn't visit our country again, leaving innocent children, men and women victims to a loaded gun. and yet the only person we care about here is the gun owner.

the only explanation we are considering would make it more convenient to carry your gun even in states that don't want it. realizing this fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective. we should be -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute. ms. slaughter: thank you. congress should be considering legislation that will help the american people, not legislation that would fulfills an ideological agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. i urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose today's legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, in 2007 a colorado man shot -- colorado man named matthew murray allegedly wrote online, all i want to do is kill and injure as many christians as i can. murray then went on to a shooting rampage, killing two young children outside a missionary training center

outside denver and then at a gathering of 7,000 people in colorado springs, colorado, with a rifle in a backpack full of ammunition. murray killed two sisters. murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member and a volunteer security guard, jeannie, who has a concealed carry permit and once worked in law enforcement. essam shot murray several times leading him to kill himself. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: in hearing the story of my friend from florida, my colleague in the rules committee, again, i think it just emphasizes that my state, colorado, already has a concealed carry process. we have a must issue provision to some of our county this was who were not issuing and denying issuance

unreasonableably, highlights this entire bill is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. colorado has reciprocal concealed carry arrangement in over 30 states, including all of our neighboring states. you can drive to colorado and wyoming in the south. you can drive from colorado to new mexico -- arizona -- sorry -- in the north, wyoming, in the south, in new mexico, east or west. you are in no danger about your concealed weapon permit not being recognized. and, yes, there are some states we don't have a repick rickal agreement from. -- reciprocal agreement from. the state of nevada. the proper venue is not for the people of the sovereign state of nevada and the sovereign state of colorado to alike leadership that will work on a reciprocal carry arrangement if that's what they want to do. if there's real issue there and my constituents are hampered by their ability not to have their colorado concealed weapons permit recognized, let's say in the state of california, that's a matter between the states. openly the door -- opening the

door for federal intervention in this very sensitive area opens the door to a federal gun owner registry, which a number of gun owners -- gun rights advocates in my district have expressed a great deal of worry over. as well as open the door for a whole host of other problems that can come from washington, d.c., bureaucrats deciding where you can and can't take your guns rather than protecting our second amendment in the states. some other concerns that have been articulated to me from some of the gun owners rights groups in the state of colorado, they're worried about more onerous standards to require a permit. they're worried about a national database of permitholders. they're also worried about this provision nullfying the constitutional carry provisions that are on the books in arizona, alaska, vermont and wyoming and that states that have a popular election method of amending the constitution are able to do.

so, again, what's the problem? i have not had any constituents contact me worried that they can't use their concealed weapons permit in a particular state. i think they're generally and i have many conceal-carry licenseholders in my district. i don't happen to be one myself. they can drive across state borders and not worry about relicensing or notifying authorities in that state. i think the gentleman from florida articulated an example of colorado where our concealed-carry permitholder helped save some lives. i think that's a fine and good thing. i asked the chair of the judiciary committee in rules whether or not he thought this provision was constitutionally required to prosect the second amendment. he said, no, the second amendment can be the states does not have to have a concealed weapons system. concealed-carry. it has to be a discretion to the state.

that's why i will encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: and the gentleman talks about states rights and we agree. there are states that do not have concealed permit and carry permits. and so it is within the states' rights to decide whether or not how they're going to regulate that particular issue in regards to weapons in their state. i'd like to, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague from florida for handling the rule. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. as a life member of the national rifle association and strong supporter of the second amendment to the united states constitution, i am pleased to speak in support of h.r. 822,

the national right to carry reciprocity act, which will help protect law-abiding american citizens' right to bear arms. the supreme court ruled in district of columbia vs. heller that, quote, the inherent right of self-defense has been essential to the second amendment right, end quote. and in mcdonald vs. the city of chicago, that the federal government can intervene to ensure that state and local governments are not restricting second amendment rights. statistics show a correlation between right to carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rights. according to the f.b.i. uniformed crime report, states that have rite-to-carry laws have 22% lower violent crime rates, 30% lower murder rates, 46% lower robbery rates and 12% lower aggravated assault rates compared to the rest of the country.

law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals and defend themselves with firearms. throughout my career in elected office i have worked with my colleagues to ensure that american citizens maintain their second amendment rights. each state has different eligibility requirements, and h.r. 822 maintains the states' ability to set its own eligibility. however, the bill will end uncertain and confusion for conceal permit holders to travel. the bill before us would allow individuals who hold a conceal-carry permit in their state of residence to carry that weapon in other states that allow conceal carry. this bill should be passed unanimously as should the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the views from the judiciary committee entitled loosening restrictions

on the carrying of concealed guns. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. boren: i rise in support of h.r. 822, the national right-to-carry act of 2011. the second amendment of the constitution provides citizens with the individual right to keep and bear arms. this right enables americans to use firearms for self-protection, for hunting and other lawful activities. h.r. 822 would guarantee that individuals who are legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon in their home state could also legally carry a concealed weapon in another state. . the bill seeks to protect our fundamental liberty, not restrict 2. just as one state recognizes a driver's license issued by another state, i believe states should recognize conceal and carry licenses issued by another.

today some states already have reciprocity agreements to recognize the conceal and carry last laws of other states. while some do not. the result is a piecemeal system where a law-abiding citizen may be required to give up his or her weapon at the state line. if passed, this bill would streamline the system by making it more simple and uniform. h.r. 822 does not create federal standards for obtaining permits. nor does it require states to adopt a specific licensing system. each state's right to determine its own permitting system will remain intact regardless of h.r. 822. you know, since the founding of our nation american citizens have had the constitutional right to bear arms and i believe this legislation is commonsense solution to preserve that right. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule today and to support final passage of h.r.

822. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. it's sad that we are taking time that should be spent on the economy and making communities safer and stronger to facilitate instead less rational and less effective gun safety laws. i deeply appreciate ms. slaughter putting "the new york times" article from last sunday in the record. the gentleman from florida talks about his experience. well, in that article is sad evidence, for example in the state of washington where that tragic occurrence occurred, since 1995 more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained gun rights, and according to the analysis provided by the state and court

system, of those more than 400, about 13% have subsequently committed new crimes and more than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape, and drive by shooting. the gentleman talks about evidence. study in the american public health journal referenced in that article found that the nine handgun purchases to felons cut the risk of their committing new gun or violent crimes by 20% to 30%. and another study by the journal of the american medical association found that handgun purchasers would at -- with at least one prior misdemeanor, not a felony, a misdemeanor were more than seven times as likely as those with no criminal record to be charged with new offenses. i come from a state that would have its protections undermined by this proposal. i think the fact we require character references, people

have to be 21 years ever age, we prohibit concealed weapon carrying by dangerous criminals, those convicted of a misdemeanor such as assault, harassment, driving while intoxicated, i think those are reasonable. that's the minimum in oregon. and instead the enactment of this legislation will enable a race to the bottom. where the lowest common denominator will determine gun law, safety laws in oregon. i think that's wrong. i urge rejection of the rule and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, a member of the judiciary committee, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you. madam speaker, this bill undermines public safety and that's why law enforcement organizations oppose the bill.

it said this is no national law established by this legislation. that's right. because if it would be a national law it would be national standards. this is rulely worse of -- actually worse. the law in effect would actually be the law of the state with the weakest concealed weapons permit that would essentially become the law of the land because you could use that permit in any state. this bill allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in a home state to go to another jurisdiction and get a concealed weapons permit and use that concealed weapons mer mitt -- permit anywhere in the country except their home state. states have different minimum standards for concealed weapons such as some require minimum training so that you know what you're dealing with, others allow permits to certain sex offenders or domestic violence offenders. all of those minimum standards will be overridden by this bill which -- because permits from other states will have to be recognized. basic controversy, madam chair,

presented by this bill is a question of what happens if more people carry firearms. some people believe that if more people carry firearms, the crime rate will go down. the studies that i have seen conclude that if more people are carrying firearms, it is more likely that somebody in their home or innocent neighbor will be killed, that's more likely than the firearm being successfully used to thwart a crime. we should not undermine public safety. we should allow states to set their own concealed weapons standards and defeat this rule and if the rule passes defeat the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida wish to continue reserving. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman and thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition for the rule of h.r. 822. as you know this committee voted down a motion to consider

the bill threw the open rule. -- through the open rule. this is an important issue we need to have the entire nation hear about it and have all of us have our voices heard. i want to make sure i get to speak on an amendment of mine that is going to be considered. under my amendment states would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by h.r. 822. this would restore the critical decision of who would be able to carry a concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs. to local governments that have to deal with the policing and other consequences such as this will do. we also will hear about other amendments that would restore rights back to states and safety back to our communities. and some sanity back into this debate. madam speaker, i think it's extremely important that we look at this as a states rights issue. my state, we have concealed weapon laws. we allow people to have concealed weapons.

but there are other states that do not come up to our standard and we don't want them coming into our state and telling us what to do. i suggest that we really look at this very carefully and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my amendment tomorrow when it comes up. we can deal with this. the supreme court has said people have the right to own a gun. they also said localities have the right to make the laws safe for their constituents. i happen to believe that h.r. 822 and the way this rule is written is not good for the united states of america. it's not good for the people of america. and i know it's not good for my state of new york. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam

speaker. and members of the house. i rise today in support of the underlying bill and the rule. this is a critical issue with respect to americans' basic rights. courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to bear arms is simply more than the second and 14th amendment. decided in the case of beard vs. u.s. in 1895, that citizens were entitled to rappel force by force and entitled to stand their ground and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. it then ruled three years ago in the d.c. vs. heller case where they essentially declared self-defense is an inherent right, central to the second amendment. and a case emanating from my state of illinois, in the case of mcdonald vs. city of

chicago, further elaborated and extended that constitutional protection. so the underlying bill and our ability, american citizens' right, and the ability to carry firearms from state to state, and to have that essential right built in is critical. i rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only from the standpoint and that's the reason for in part for my time here today, which i thank the gentleman for and i thank the members of this chamber for. illinois is unique in that we have no carry concealed weapon law. we have no ability on the part of illinois citizens to defend themselves. we have no right or ability on the part of illinois citizens to exercise their second and 14th amendment rights. this bill as it now reads to would extend the right only to other states, and i'm supportive of that because i think it's critical we extend

that right, but i am committed as well as a number of my illinois colleagues, and i think second amendment and fundamental rights congressmen throughout the united states to restore that right and bring that right to illinois citizens. time after time after time as i visit the coffee houses, as i meet with individuals throughout the district, as i meet with people throughout the state, we are essentially denied in illinois the rights and privileges of every other citizen of every other state in the union except illinois. that's a glare defishency. it's an omission. and i believe it strikes at the core of our constitutional guarantees. i am going to continue to fight not only on this bill but on stand alone legislation down the line and through the process to bring to illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, second, 14th amendment rights that other citizens have throughout the country. it's extraordinarily important. it reaches the essence of our

constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a republic of civil liberties. and i believe that it is critical we continue to fight the fight now. together with my colleagues, congressman hultgren and others from illinois who have joined me in this process. i appreciate the time. and i support the bill. i support the rule. but i also support and i want to conclude by saying this, illinois citizens rights to keep and bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our illinois legislature. thank you, madam speaker. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this rule and the bill, the national rightle to carry reciprocity act. it's the epitome of federal arrogance that would impose its will on the 50 legislatures in

this country. this bill tramples on our system of federalism and endangers the public safety by forcing states to allow the carrying of concealed firearms by out-of-state residents even if they have not met basic licensing or training requirements mandated for carrying in that state. this total respect or disregard for state laws may come as a shock to americans who have always been told that these tea party republicans want to shrink the scope of the federal government. but instead of creating jobs, we are here considering strongly a bill that is opposed by law enforcement officials throughout the states and throughout the country. this bill is nothing more than

a piece of special interest legislation for the national rifle association. under this bill, states will no longer be able to set standards for who may carry concealed loaded guns in public. states that prevent those convicted of violent crime would no longer be able to enforce their state laws. but it is not, ladies and gentlemen, absolute. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nublingent: i yield to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. pompeo: i applaud the house for taking up h.r. 822 the national right to carry press pros it act. as a veteran and strong defender of the second amendment, i encourage all my colleagues to support me in this important piece of

legislation. . in kansas in 2007 we began to issue concealed carry permits. since then kansas has entered into agreements with many other states across the region to create interstate reciprocity. and while many states have similar agreements, they benefit only a portion of the american population and kansas knows that states that have this fundamental right to keep and bear arms. the legislation and the rule we're considering today offer an opportunity for the federal government to facilitate cohesion between the states without extending its reach further into our laws than is necessary. the national right to carry reciprocity act would allow concealed carry permits in one state to be legally recognized in another and accepted in every state of the union who has a similar set of laws. under the bill everyone is still required to follow the firearm laws in each of the different states in which they choose to carry. our founding fathers considered this right to bear arms so important they put it in the constitution, allowing this

reciprocity as a simple act of ex tending what our founders originally intended. i hope that congress will honor this principle by supporting this rule and passing this bill which at its core does nothing more than protect the second amendment right of every kansan and every law-abiding citizen. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has left? mr. nugent: i have one more speaker. mr. mcgovern: a closer speaker or -- mr. nugent: no. just one more speaker. mr. mcgovern: then i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. nugent: moo woodall.

-- mr. woodall. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank my friend on the rules committee for yielding. i rise in strong support of this rule today. now, i hear a lot of conversation about states' rights here on the house floor. federalism. you know, that debate that james madison and thomas jefferson had more than two centuries ago. and it's an important debate to have and i hope we have that debate on every single thing that we do in this body. host: we ask ourselves that question every single day, is this a responsibility and a role the federal government ought to be playing or should this be something that's left to the states? sadly i've heard more of that enthusiasm today than i usually hear down here. but i welcome it. not as a step in the wrong direction, but a step towards that new beginning. i believe that we can absolutely come together around those kinds of uniting issues, does the federal government need to be involved in this or does it not? the reason i'm in strong support

of this rule, however, is that it may -- made 10 amendments in order. this bill, this concealed carry reciprocity bill, and in fairness, full disclosure, i'm literally a card carrying member of the concealed carry bandwagon. i've got my georgia carry permit here in my pocket. i have since i was 22 and living in a neighborhood that i thought i needed some self-protection living in. this is a discussion that this body has been trying to have for about 15 years. as long as i remember watching congress this bill has been knocking around in congress and no one has ever brought it to the floor of the house, despite a broad bipartisan majority of the body co-sponsoring it. i've always wondered why. because, for pete's sakes, if it's something that the majority of the body is going to co-sponsor, it ought to be something the majority of the body is going to support and we ought to bring it to the house floor and let the house work its will. i'm still struggling with the underlying legislation but i appreciate this leadership and this rules committee for

bringing the bill to the floor when more than a majority of the house is co-sponsored it and i appreciate this leadership and this rules committee for giving us 10 amendments from which to choose, to improve the bill. there are opt-in provisions, if you're worried about federalism. there are honor state compact amendments if you're worried about federalism. there are study amendments with the g.a.o. to sort out whether or not there are unintended consequences with regard to noncitizen -- nonresident -- not noncitizen, nonresident permits. these choices are out there for us. not only did this rules committee bring forward a bill that other congresses have not had the courage to bring forward, but it brought forward it a -- it in a way that this body can work its will. eight democratic amendments, as i recall. two republican amendments. that's the kind of house i came to congress as a freshman to work in. i appreciate the work the rules committee did to make this possible and i appreciate, madam speaker, the work of the

leadership in guiding us down this path. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from "the new york times" entitled "so much for small government." i'd like to ask unanimous consent to also insert an article in the record, an article entitled "how glock will travel" and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter to the leadership of this house signed by the attorney general of massachusetts opposing this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from georgia that we should somehow be grateful that the rules committee majority threw some crumbs our way. but the fact is, this is not an open rule, this is not an open process. and for a majority that came in saying that everything was going to be open, they have not kept their promise and this is far from it. a lot of good amendments were

not made in order, amendments do not have the right to offer amendments here on the floor. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and especially my republican friendses, in keeping with your proposition when you guys -- when you took the majority, please vote no on this rule. and i will also say, madam speaker, that i oppose this bill because it tramples on the rights of my state and it tramples on the rights of a number of states that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a concealed weapon and under this bill those guidelines all go away. so the lowest common denominator carries the day. i don't think that's good for public safety and if you care about states' rights, you know, it's not good for states' rights advocates either. i just want to spend my final moments just reminding my colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. there are 14 million americans without jobs. there are millions more who are

underemployed. we just came back from another congressional break. i don't know where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to your districts, i find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it easier to carry concealed weapons from state to state to state. i just don't believe that that's what people are talking about. surely not people in my congressional district. they're talking -- my people are talking about jobs. when i'm at the airport people talk to me about jobs. that's what they want us to focus on. not on reaffirming the national motto of the united states is in god we trust. i mean, we wasted a day on. that didn't need reaffirming. there it is. right up there in gold lettering above where the speaker sits. it's on the back of a dollar bill. why do we have to spend time debating that? and today we're not talking about jobs, we're talking about a gun bill? now, i know that the special interest lobbyists, the national

riffle association, they like this and they want us to move forward object this -- on this. but put this special interest aside for a second and push your -- put your constituents first. and what do our constituents want us to do? they want to us fix this economy. we should be debating some of the opponents of the president's jobs bill. or a jobs bill of your own. but we should be talking about how to put people back to work. not spending time here talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from state to state to state. i mean, this is nuts, that we're spending and wasting this time on this issue. madam speaker, you know, let me give you -- the gentleman from georgia said, a majority of members favor this bill, therefore we should bring it to the floor. you know what? a member of ma -- a majority of members of this chamber also support a bill to hold china accountable for the fact that china manipulates its currency. as a result of that if we

actually held them accountable we could actually create an estimated $1 million to -- 1 million -- one million to 1.5 million jobs in america. a majority of members of this house on both sides of the aisle support that. yet we can't get that to the floor. that will help create some jobs. i mean, this bipartisan support -- there's bipartisan support for that, there's bipartisan support for the components of the president's jobs bill yet you will not bring it to the floor. instead we're dealing with this stuff. again, this may be good for pleasing the special interest, but it is not what we should be doing in this chamber. what's good for this country is to focus on the economy. what's good for this country is to focus on jobs and i will say to my republican friends, you're indifference on the issue of jobs is shameful. it is absolutely shameful. millions of americans are out of work. millions are underemployed. people worried about whether they can pay their mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay their prescription drug bills, whether they can afford to send

their killeds to college and this is what we're spend -- kids to college and this is what we're spending our time on? give me a break. we need to refocus in this congress. we need to get our priorities straight. i'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the motto of this country, it's not gun bills, what's at the top of the list is jobs. let's put america back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this restrictive rule and vote no on the underlying bill and let's bring a jobs bill to this floor. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i'm always amazed at what goes on in these chambers. we hear from the other side of the aisle about talking about jobs. even though this house has passed 20, 20, count them, jobs bills. if you don't believe it, read it. you know, it's -- we talk about issues about in god we trust. i think it is something that we

should affirm here in america, about our belief in god. i believe that the second amendment is not a special interest group. i believe the second amendment needs to be protected at all costs. you know, you've heard some in this house that would take away our right to even carry or possess a firearm. madam speaker, you know, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns that killed people, it was every object imaginable from fist to feet to pipes to kitchen knives. madam speaker, and baseball bats. madam speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a legitimate carry permit to go across the state line and not be subject to arrest. someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the state line, that doesn't have a

reciprocity agreement with their current state, and they have a carry permit. madam speaker, this is more about what's right with america in regards to upholding our second amendment, our constitutional right. and so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, i guess, it smacks that they disagree with our founding fathers and our second amendment right. madam speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. h.r. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners throughout the united states. i've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime. i completely agree. guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated with respect. guns can be used by people to kill other people. however, what i saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to

talk about these in broader terms. what we really need to do is talk about the difference between legal and illegal guns. most people used a gun to kill a human being are not just using a gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed leaguely, that they got -- legally, that they got a permit for. you know, when you look at the numbers of c.c.w. permit holds that are have actually violated the law, at least in the state of florida, it's .001%. those people, there are people that are criminals and they're criminals simply for having a firearm, even in the state of florida a felon can't possess a firearm. today we're talking about one thing, we're talking about legal gun owners to legally travel from one state to another, that have a concealed weapons permit. i support that effort and that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor,

stand here today, of h.r. 822 and as a sponsor of this rule, h.res. 463. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly. i underline strongly, bipartisan legislation. with that i yiel >> an hour of general debate and they'll consider some 10 amendments earlier today. the house also passed the coast guard authorization bill. live coverage of the house tomorrow. they're in for morning hour speeches at 10:00 and legislative business at noon. you'll see it here on c-span. here's a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span networks at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span. remarks from house republican leader eric cantor and treasury secretary tim geithner on the

u.s. economy and jobs. on c-span 2, florida senator discusses a new bipartisan jobs bill that he and delaware senator will soon introduce. and one hour earlier, at 7:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span 3, the acting director of the federal housing finance agency testifies on executive compensation packages paid to the c.e.o.'s of fanfan and why he feels they're necessary for people who are needed to manage $5 trillion of mortgage assets. all of these events tonight on the c-span tv networks. >> c-span.org home page is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. there's a section on the home page to access our most popular series and programs like washington journal, book tv, american history tv, and the contenders. and we've added a handy channel finder so can you quickly find where to watch our three c-span networks on cable or satellite systems across the country.

at the all new c-span.org. >> lots of talk about spending and jobs and budget on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." fist up, congressman jim mcdermott, the democrat from washington, then congressman bob goodlatte talking about his proposed balanced budget amendment. also on the program, yuval levin on his cover story discussing his national review cover stroir about the political philosophy underpinning liberalism. "washington journal" starts tomorrow and every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. republican presidential candidate rick perry traveled to iowa yesterday to speak to supporters at a dinner honoring ronald range. he previewed his government reform plans that he'll announce tomorrow. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you very much, bribe, judey, thank you. it is an honor to be here with you. hardest working woman in show business, i got to say, you're

awesome. i really appreciate that. and susan frazier's out there somewhere. susan, where are you? there you are. thank you, girl. she's my scott county coordinate here and she's doing fabulous job. so thank you for all that you're doing. and, mattek-sands, obviously just getting to watch you and stand up for iowa, it is awesome. i mean, i told somebody, they said, what's that secretary of state, man, he's just all over this, first in the country, i said, man, it's kind of like, if you ain't for your home team, who are you going to be for? so, matt, thank you for the work that you've done and i know the people of iowa are very proud to have you and the work that you do. and to the local senators and the representatives, thank you all for coming out and for your public service, your sacrifice that you make. certainly these three individuals who got up and shared with you their hearts about the future of this country

, the individuals that want to represent you in congress and they truly -- they get it about what this is really all about, from the standpoint of nibbling around the edges is not going to work anymore. we're going to have to send people to washington, they're truly going to make a difference. i can see all three of those ready to walk into the room with maybe a sledgehammer. and get a little bit of work done. anyway, honored to have them up here. [applause] and, you know, being here, i'm always reminded when i show up in iowa, you know, the pundits always think they're the ones that pick presidents. nope. it's the people of iowa that pick the presidents. [applause] i got that figured out. i feel a special connection, as brian was sharing with you, of being the son of a couple of farmers from back out in texas and actually it wasn't a town,

as a matter of fact, it was just a little community out there. small school on a farm to market road, had about 110 kids, grades one through 12, and a methodist church and a baptist church across the farm to market road, your choice. and as i was growing up, there were three things that i could be doing, going to school, which took up a good bit of time, or working at the farm and being in the f--- 4-h or going to bioscouts. and mom made sure that -- boy scouts and mom made sure i never missed a revival. but our teachers there, at that little school, they lived around -- they lived around the campus dock. they had their own -- i mean, it was just an incredible little community and place to grow up. and it was pretty humble beginnings. and i will be forever grateful

for that. we weren't rich. as a matter of fact, people would probably say we didn't have much materially. but we were rich. we were rich in things of faith and family. we were rich with great neighbors who took care of each other. i learned, unlike in a lot of western societies, that opportunity wasn't granted to you because of your family name, but because of your capacity to dream. your willingness to work hard. you know, as americans we do not believe government exists to punish success in order to spread the wealth. we don't believe that. we believe government exists to protect our rights and to guarantee our freedom. i think washington today has it all wrong. they punish success instead of multiplying it, brad.

they think the public sector can stimulate the economy when that's the job of the private sector. they think the answer is to every problem, let's just add a new agency of government. and i can remember most of them. [laughter] [applause] and i for one don't believe the people that got us into this mess can get us out of it. senator jim in south carolina, i heard him say the other day, he said, are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? the solution is not to nominate someone who's going to nibble around the edges, as i said earlier. we're going to have to have people like these congressmen to be, that walked in here tonight, talking about bold ideas. about really making a

difference. washington doesn't need a new coat of paint. it needs a complete overhaul. [applause] you know, it's really interesting, as i look across the country, and as i've traveled a good bit since the middle of august, and america remains mired in the ruins of this washington, out-of-touch, big government policies and when you go into washington -- washington, d.c., though, and that surrounding area, they're doing just fine. it's really interesting. in fact, washington metro area is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country. and that's because all those lobbyists, that's because all of those overpaid czars and bureaucrats haven't suffered one bit while we've been going through one of the worst economies that this country's

ever seen. main street's windows may be getting boarded up but the cash continues to flow to those wall street financiers, those beltway profit ears. -- profiteers. tomorrow i'm going to unveil a plan to uproot all three branches of government. and overhaul washington. it touches every branch of government. because they each have contributed to the demise of america. i'm going to address lifetime federal judges who arrogantly rewrite our laws from the bench. [applause] i'm going to address the permanent bureaucracy of the executive branch which thwarts the will of the american people to advance a big government agenda. i'm going to put forward some very dramatic reforms for a congress that not only spends

too much but is in washington too much. [applause] the question facing iowans in 50 days isn't weather weather to embrace change, but to decide for them, iowans to decide, who is the most credible messager of that change. now, i'm the first to admit, i'm not the most poppished candidate out there -- polished candidate out there. but let me tell you one thing, i stick to my principles and those principles include a flat tax so simple can you file your income tax on a postcard -- ucla file your income on a -- you can file your income tax on a postcard. [applause] those principles include creating a level playing field. that's why i'm for closing the corporate loopholes and carveouts that these lobbyists

and these tax lawyers have been exploiting, to feed at that washington trough. i'm the only candidate who has a plan to balance our budget by the year 2020. and with our nation, just as you heard john say a while ago, approaching $15 trillion in debt , i think any discussion of funding for foreign aid should start with the number zero. [applause] we will not fund nations who oppose our interests and harm our soldiers. that's just a fact. when it comes to protecting life , i offer more than just some pro-life rhetoric. i have a pro-life record. i signed a parental consent law for miners seeking an abortion -- minors seeking an abortion. i signed a budget that defunds planned parenthood in texas.

[applause] and rather than bowing to the political correctness of liberal elites, i led the charge in texas to change or i should say to define marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman and we put it on the constitutional amendment and put it in the texas constitution. and i might add, matt, just this last session i was proud to sign that legislation that in our state, when you go to vote, you must come with a photo i.d. [applause] keep at it. you're on the right track, brother. listen, leadership isn't about style. it's about substance. it's about action. and the test of any american is not whether or not we get knocked down, we're all going to do that. every one of us has. but it's whether we get up. throughout the years, americans have been defined by men and women who got off the mat and fought for their values and

started with the pilgrims. they wouldn't accept religious persecution in their homeland so they sailed here to find new life and new freedom. and then it continued with the colonists them. bristled at the taxes and the edicts of a distance crown -- distant crown. and they never stopped fighting. until they won that battle. generations of americans have not shrunk from a worthy fight. in the 20th century americans have fought the forces of fascism in two warled wars, the forces of communism in korea and in vietnam and the cold war. and since then our troops have fought dictators who threatened our vital interests in the middle east, in asia. right now there are millions of americans on the mat. not because of a foreign power,

but because of flawed federal policies. too many know the shame of going home to tell a loved one that they lost their job today. too many have to tell their children they can't afford to go to college. millions have lost their homes because the federal government and the credit rating agencies misled them into thinking that they could afford zero down. who is it that's going to fight for those people? who is it that's going to stand up for those americans? not an administration that has made our economy crisis even worse. not a president who in the last few days has called our people soft. lacking in ambition and imagination, where his words.

who just saturday night said americans have gotten lazy. mr. president, americans aren't lazy. and they're not soft. americans do not lack a vision or ambition. we lack leadership in washington, d.c. that's what this country lacks. [applause] the american people, the american people are not to blame for this bloated federal government that's out of touch with american interests. and for every american who's been knocked down by washington's mismanagement, here's my pledge, i'm going to fight to end the i.r.s. as you know it today. i want to fight to overhaul washington, build a smaller, more humble federal government, fight to create jobs for every american that's out of work and won't rest until those who are looking for work have found it.

and they can have their dreams again. we've had enough of leaders who point the finger and say, there's where to blame. i want to point this country in a new direction. i'm in this race for the presidency not because of some life long ambition, but because the american people are yearning for a leader who will tell them the truth, who will put forward bold and visionary plans, who will not appease the washington establishment but dismantle it. if you want real change, if you want to overhaul business as usual, i ask you for your support, i ask you to caucus for me on january 3. let's get america working again and let's get this movement started right here in iowa. god bless you. thank you all for coming out and being with us tonight.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> governor, don't forget to file your taxes. [laughter] i want to thank you all for being here tonight. another round of applause for governor perry. terrific speech. [applause] i'm excited tonight, like i was when we did this first time a few years back, because can you see the energy and excitement within the republican party that indicated that we had a good wind at our back and we were ready to win. we're ready to win in 2012, let's continue the hard work, let's continue to be united and committed. go to your caucus but come behind whoever wins that process and let's go and have a great republican victory in 2012. thank you for coming. god bless you. i have to remind you that the

silent auction will remain open for 10 more minutes. so check your bids one last time and then when the auctions overtake your bid sheet but not the item to the front desk and they will check you out and then can you pick up the item. thanks again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> where's your lovely wife tonight? >> well, she is in dallas until about an hour. [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you for coming. >> oh, yes. >> sure. this guy right here. >> right. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> how are you? [inaudible] >> i was wondering if i could get a picture. >> would you do this? whoever. >> it will tell you. >> ok. >> all right. >> got it. >> thank you. [inaudible]

>> are get going to let him get in here with us? [inaudible] >> thank you, all. see you tomorrow.

>> see more videos of the candidates at c-span's website for campaign 2012. from recent events to the earliest parts of their campaigns. read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters, from social media sites and link to c-span's media partners in the early primary and caucus states. iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. a look at our prime time schedule here on c-span. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, house majority leader eric cantor talks about several issues including medicare, job creation and the joint deficit reduction committee, he spoke earlier today at an annual conference hosted by "the wall

street journal." you'll see his comments tonight at 8:00 here on c-span. and following that, at 8:40 eastern, more from the conference with remarks by treasury secretary timothy geithner. he discussed the economic crisis in europe, housing issues and the future of the u.s. and global economies, both of those events tonight on c-span. and also today at that "wall street journal" conference, former chairman of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform, the debt commission, bowles and simpson discussed the u.s. deficit and urged the joint deficit reduction committee to find solutions by the november 23 deadline. this is 35 minutes. >> we're going to talk a little bit about the pocketbook and its condition. i'm wondering, given the dimension of this problem, if we could take just a minute to do a

little bit of laying of the land, landscape. and then address immediately something on the mind of the c.e.o. group. every year i talk with the c.e.o.'s at this session, there are inevitabley the discussion of uncertainty about the future comes up. we don't know what the regulatory structure's going to be, what the tax structure's going to be, what the health care structure is going to be. so wen can't make business decisions and if you're asking about hiring, there's one of the fundamental problems, that's why we're not hiring. at root is our fiscal well-being in this country. and i'm wondering, whether you can start us off. give us a sense of the dimension of the issue now, for folks who may have not spent the last five minutes reading the newspaper. and whether or not you think that the supercommittee is actually going to have the political will, the topic of our session today, to do something about this. >> sure. good morning. if you haven't thrown up yet, you're getting ready to. [laughter]

like you, i'm a business guy. just makes me sick. i think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. i think it's as clear as the nose on my face. i know that the fiscal path they are on here in washington is not sustainable and worse yet i know every member of that fiscal commission knows it too. the economics is very clear. the politics is very difficult. somebody asked me the other day, john, you know, to give them an analogy. i said, yeah, these deficits are like a cancer. and they are simply over time going to destroy the country from within. i'll give you one little simple arithmetic example. and can you draw your own conclusions based on your own company. if you take 100% of a revenue

that came into the country last year, i'm not talking about 20 years ago or 20 years from now, 100% of the revenue that came in last year, every sickle dime of it was consumed by our mandatory spending and interest on the debt. mandatory spending in english is basically the entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid and social security. that means every single dollar we spent last year on these two wars, on national defense, on homeland security, education, infrastructure, high value added research, every single dollar was borrowed and half of it was borrowed from foreign countries. i mean, that's a formula for failure in anybody's book. we do nothing, we just, you know, take the theory of sticking our heads in the ground or do verylogical little. what will you see is by the year 2020 we'll be spending over $1

trillion a year in interest cost alone. and this is not a program -- a problem that we can solely grow our way out of. could you have double-digit growth for decades and not solve this problem. it's not a problem that we can solely tax our way out of it. if there's another democrat in here and usually there's one or two -- [laughter] you know, i can tell you, you can't solely tax your way out of this. raising taxes doesn't do a darn thing to change the fact of the demographics of the country are changing drastically and health care is growing at a faster rate than g.d.p. and we can't simply cut our way out of a problem. i think that's been pretty clear as they've gone through this last debate. that's why al and i came up with a balanced, what i think is a responsible, reasonable plan that takes $4 trillion out of the deficits, $1 trillion from revenue, $3 trillion from spending, the spending has to

come before the revenue, so we don't get caught in one of those deals that reagan did back in the 1980's. and we got a supermajority to vote for it, we got a majority of republicans, a majority of democrats and as an example we've got six u.s. senators on our commission, five of them voted yes, all three republicans and two out of three democrats. the vote was as dispersed from the far left of dick durbin from illinois to the far right of tomko burn from oklahoma. -- tom coburn of oklahoma. we tried to do it in a smart way. so we built it around six basic principles. but the first principle is pretty simple, we didn't want to do anything that disrupted a very fragile economic recovery and i don't think it's any doubt this recovery is pretty fragile. today, where are we?

obviously what allen and i want this group to do is to go big. to be smart and to be bold. and i'm not sure if they're going to do any of those three. the reason we came up with the $4 trillion was not because the number four bus, you know, went down the road and we said, that's a great number. $4 trillion's not the maximum amount we need to reduce the deficit. it's not the ideal amount. it's a minimum amount you need to reduce the deficit in order to stabilize the debt and get it on a downward path to g.d.p. so if these guys end up just doing $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion, i guarantee you we'll be back in this game as early as next year. so, we hope they'll solve the problem, my best guess is that the probability is very, very low that they will. >> mr. simpson, if $1.2 trillion isn't enough, my sense is that

the two of you wonder whether they're even going to get to the $1.2 trillion at this stage. is that a fair characterization? >> first i want to reflect on that thing that was up here before the last panel started and the word fiscal was down here in the corner. it looked like a sparrow bell. right down there. was fiscal. all these great things were spread. i thought, that's fascinating. let me tell you. we don't use charts, we don't use power point, we speak all over the country together, this is a magnificent man. and we just say to people, if you spend more than you earn, you lose your butt. if you spend a buck and borrow 41 cents of it, you got to be stupid. and if you are borrowing today $4,6,000,000,000 and doing that today and tomorrow and the next day, you got to be dull-witted. that's where we are.

and why isn't it moving? what is happening, let me tell you, the $4 trillion is an absolute -- we thought would be something they could swallow. we thought we could restore the solvency of social security without balancing the budget on the backs of poor old seniors. stick your finger down the throat the next time you hear that baby. >> we protect social security for its own sake and we can't raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050. we can't change the -- we can't get this, we can't get that. because of the aarp. let's get serious here. you've seen their ads, their savage ads and this old fart points his finger, we know where are you, we know where you vote. we're going to get -- [laughter] and they are impossible and then grover norquist wanders the

earth with his white robe on. and let me tell you, it's funny, but it's not funny. because grover norquist has 95% of those republicans who say, he says to them, don't you raise taxes one shred unless you reduce, so coburn sticks in a thing to get rid of ethanol, $6 billion, it passes, and grover calls it a tax increase. that is ludicrous and deceptive. so he's out there an he's going to ask them to deliver and i think the thing that disappoints both of us, what can he do to you? he can't murder you, he can't burn your house, the only thing grover can do to you is defeat you for re-election. and if that means more to you than your country and extremity, you shouldn't even be in congress. >> so, november 23 comes along -- [applause] november 23 comes along, it's

the midterm paper's due again, there's an all-nighter beforehand, if there's any sort of history plays out again. and let's say that we don't get a deal and the triggers fire off. $1.2 trillion comes out of defense and discretionary spending. is that an acceptable, painful resolution? >> nobody will get blamed for it because the election will be over. it takes place in 2013, that's why they put this little package together. and don't forget, if the heat gets really big, they'll just go back into session and fake the triggers away -- take the triggers away. >> they can do that. >> all they got to do is gather and legislate. >> right. or think -- [laughter] or rethink the defense portion of the trigger. >> well, anyway, it will be a tragedy to do that. i say let leon pennetta alone in there, i've known him for 40

years, and he'll do it with a scalpel. he's dealing with tricare, which is health care system which is $470 a year premium. $470 a year for military retirees. i was in the military. $2.2 million -- 2.2 million of them and it costs $53 billion a year. we said, bob gates, what's the hell is this? he said, you take them on. i have to deal with the professional veterans, the v.f.w., which i'm a member, american legion. the reason things are so hot now is that we were so specific, we knew the interest groups would gear up if they ever thought this goofy thing that we messed with would work. they laughed at first and now they're thinking, man, here we come, here come the home mortgage, here come the insurance industry, the blue cross, oil and gas, depletion allowances, and all of those tax expenditures are one trillion, 100 billion a year and they're only used by 6% of the american people.

the little guy never heard of half of them. >> would you have loved it when we went to see gates. and we were talking about the things in the defense department we could cut. and we got around to contractors. >> oh, god. [laughter] >> i said, how many contractors do you actually have? they all huddled up and came back a few minutes later and said, we have somewhere between one and 10 million. i said, that's a very narrow range. but that's kind of information that you can get. i think it's a trafficiest if we end up at $1.2 trillion on these deductions. doesn't solve the problem by any stretch of imagination. i'm afraid the american people, some of them, will think it's solved the problem and it certainly doesn't. worse yet, as you were intimating, john, you know, we're going to go through this sequester process. the cuts are $600 billion in

defense, $600 billion in nondefense with a few exceptions off to the side. and if in fact we only do the $1.2 trillion, i think most people in the world will look at us and they'll think of this debt default fiasco we went through in the summer and they'll think, well, this proves these guys can't govern. and then if we put the sequester in and these guys turn around the very next day and try to figure out how they can bust the sequester, since as alan said the cuts don't go into effect until 2013, then i think they'll really come at us and i think you could see some really negative affects in the market -- effects in the market. >> you were saying before we came on that the various groups that you've spoken with have said, please save us from ourselves. we're looking for some outside divine intervention to untangle the political seizure that we're

in. can you describe that a little bit more? you've mentioned aarp, you've mentioned various interest groups. why is that so -- why is that so sort of unmoveble, this time around? and then second, what could this group do to help in the process? who needs to be given some backbone and how best is that done? >> well, it wasn't the groups we were surprised that said that, as we spent 10 months on the campus here, i call it a campus because there's a lot of students there. [laughter] and they would come up to us as they went to roll call votes, democrat and republican alike, and say, save us from ourselves. these are intelligent, i mean, these are good people of both parties. they are frozen in place, they're frozen in place by a system that, as they said, we didn't spend any time how we got here, but let me tell new an instant how we got here. we were sent to congress to bring home the bacon.

we were sent to get the tax code changed, we were sent to get this, we were sent to get that. this gimmick, that gimmick, this grant, this dam, this railroad, this whatever. and if you didn't do that, you weren't re-elected. now they're caught. the pig is dead. there's no bacon to bring home. and they can't even get guys on the appropriations committee but let me tell you, the power of the campaign contributions has now reached its ultimate point. through the years you helped the guy with the primary, you maxed out on that, you maxed out on all the generals he ran and at the end of the day he came in and said, you know, we never bother you, we just love you. and that's why we support you. so gingerly and beauty -- beautifully at all time, but now when they see what could happen to them, they're in that congressperson's office said, we never asked you for a thing,

buster, but this is it. we'll go down the pipe if we lose this tax expenditure and you're going to deliver. i don't mean that in the form of retribution or bribery, forget that. but it's called washington reality. and that's what's out there right now. >> these guys absolutely understand the need to do something and the need to do something now. and do it in a smart way. it's the politics, as i always say, that keeps them from doing something smart. and, you know, i've spent my life in the business world and we really do need your help. and the problem you all have is not too different from the problem that the members of congress have. as i've talked to or alan and i both together have talked to thousands of business leaders, you know, from the chamber to the business council to here,

and all of you have your individual thing up here that you're worried about. you have your issue, your sacred cow. and by god, you know, you hear somebody like us talk and you get it. you know these guys have got to really cut spending and they've got to reform the tax code and when they reform the tax code they got to get rid of some of this backdoor spending in the tax code that are called tax expenditures. and so you get all charged up and you say, i'm going to help on that. and then you go back and talk to your washington guy and say, wait a minute, guys. we got this big issue and if we do that, this guy's going to get mad at us. scow kind of be for it in general but don't do anything specific. and so the business community really does need to step up. if you think this is really important. and alan and i happen to think it's one of the most critical issues the nation faces today.

and i don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, this is going to bite us all. the one thing we did find as we went through this process is the more comprehensive we made it, the more people we got to support it. nobody wanted their own objection to be gored but they -- ox to be gored but they said, if everybody's ox is going to be gored then it's really, you know, everybody's got some skin in the game, everybody's being asked to sacrifice somewhere. and so we were able to get such a broad coalition of people to come onboard. because they saw that we were doing it for the country and everybody was going to pay a price because as a nation we had promised more than we could deliver. . >> what's going to happen, come noh 23? a deal? no deal? >> there's probably a 10% chance these guys will go big,

and that's probably a 10% higher chance than anyone else in town gives them. all they need to do is get a simple majority. we had to get a super majority and we got it. i think politics has changed since last december when we came forward with our report because of what's going on in europe, because of the whole debt default fiasco in the summer. i think more people understand the problem and the polls show that. lastly, we got this hammer coming in that makes across the board cuts and you guys know across the board cuts are never the smart way to get a budget under control. i think we've got about a 10% chance to go big, about $4 trillion over 10 years. i think we've got probably a 25% to 30% chance that they'll actually come up with real cuts that add up to $1.2 trillion or $1.5 trillion, which is their mandate, and hopefully those

won't all be gim exs. i think that leaves at least a 50% probability that they won't do anything, they'll just completely fail. >> reminder that you can submit questions on your he novo thinkpad and while you're thinking about it, let me ask a question of the two of you. i think you two know as well as anyone that this isn't something that will be solved by committee. ultimately it requires leadership. it's a pretty dismal view you've given of the state of that leadership at the moment. what are the chances that after the election you have the leadership and the political will in place to really tackle this in a serious way. >> i think after the election, the people who have been hiding and don't have the guts or courage to come forward when their country demands their

leadership and their congressional leadership, i think in the election, some of those people will be defeated instead of lauded to the high heavens, that you didn't social security, you didn't touch defense you didn't touch medicaid, and we love you for that, while their country just sinks and forget obamacare, call it elvis presley care or i don't care, it can't work. it can't possibly work. you know that in your heart. dave cody was on our commission, hundred kneewell c.e.o., he got up and said, are you people stupid? business people think politicians are stupid and politicians think about -- think business people are stupid. didn't apps your question but i got a lot off my chest. >> if you look at the

forecasts, you would die. to get -- you can imagine what $1 trillion of new debt does to the country's balance sheet and operating statements. most people in this town if you put a balance sheet in this hand and income statement in this hand and asked them which is which, they couldn't tell you. but most of them, you know, you can see what the results are. and the current path is not sustainable. the markets are not going to let it go forward. as soon as the markets get their eyes off of europe and refocus on the u.s., i think you're going to see a real reaction. i think it'll be a crisis. i think it'll force these guys to act. >> how did you describe our country presently? as a horse? >> somebody asked me why our interest rates are so low, i said it's because we're the best-looking horse in the glue factory today. >> so in your view, it'll take

a crisis. it won't just take an election, it'll take a crisis. >> i think we'll have a crisis before these guys act. i hope they'll act now. i hope they'll act next year, i hope they'll act right after the election. but again, you know, in 1997, i negotiated the balanced budget between president clinton and gingrich and lott. in that particular circumstance, we had two sides that really wanted to get a deal done and people were willing to put their partisanship aside. there was severe partisanship if you remember and really worked toward a common goal of balancing the federal budget and putting our fiscal house in order. it takes both parties and the leadership of both parties to get behind it. without thing me phone of a president who -- the meg ga phone of a president who has been largely absent, it's really, really tough. >> over here.

>> good morning, bob reynolds, putnam investments. you were a presidential commission and delivered your report in december. how surprised were you that your commission gave the president tremendous coverage to do something, and it wasn't even mentioned in the state of the union? i'd like to hear your reaction to that. it was, i i think, an unbelievable opportunity to -- for him to really take control of this problem. >> if you think you were surprised, you should have looked at -- at us. i negotiated the budget for president clinton. and you know, every investment banker will tell you, the key to success is knowing your client and defining success upfront. i knew what success was on his part so i could go and better negotiate the deal. i did not know president obama, neither did allen. we spent a tremendous amount of

time up front with him and his economic team defining success because we didn't want to come back with a plan that was here and they'd be here and the whole thing would fall apart. that doesn't do anybody any good. we negotiated a deal that again, got a majority of republicans to vote for it, so we had plenty of cover on the other side. it exceeded every single one of the goals he gave us. and so, i fully expected them to grab hold and say, that's great. president clinton was like, this is wonderful. all my idea. and so we were really surprised. and you know, my belief is that most of the members of the economic team strongly supported it, they got it. and like every white house there's a small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts and works with,

and i believe it was those chicago guys, the political team, that convinced him that it would be smarter for him to wait and let paul ryan go first and then he'd look like the sensible guy in the game. we then expected before the state of the union that when he did the stimulus, that that would be a great time to say, not only, look, we're going to do this to get the economy moving forward but we have to do it for the context of long-term fiscal reform and responsibility. and he didn't. so we then were sure it was going to be in the state of the union. again if you remember the state of the union, he talked about the real need for this country to invest in education and infrastructure and high val added research to be able to compete in a knowledge based global economy. he's right about that. but he left off the part where we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way. we live in a world of limited resources. that means choices and priorities.

the terrible irony is the mandatory programs are eating a el hole through those programs. they are on automatic pilot. they can't be stopped. medicare is on automatic pilot and medicaid and these things and every day that they get deeper in their train wreck, it takes it out of the things he's speaking of. those things will disappear. >> i spent four year, five years as president of the university of north carolina. one thing we wanted to do was improve k through 12. the product we were receiving k through 12 is not up to international standards by any stretch. we wanted to do our part. we were part of the problem as well as the solution. we said we've got to produce not just more teachers, but better teachers, more math and science teachers. i turned to our guys and said, are there federal programs to get this done? they said, sure they are. i said let's look at them. turned out there were 82 programs.

do we need 82 programs? no. we need one or two good ones. i told these guys, this reminds mauve a great nobel prize winning scientist, rutherford, when his nobel project was running out of money and he turned to his team and said, hey, we're running out of money, now we've got to start thinking. that's what america is. we're running out of money. we've got to start thinking. we've got to set priorities. we've got to spend our money more wisely, just like you guys do, having gone through a zillion leveraged buyouts, you have to spend your money more wisely. >> questions? comments? >> there's one thing that's very difficult, and that's the word trillion. no one understands what a trillion is. so, a trillion is a thousand billions, and if you really want to know what a trillion is the big bang theory of the universe was 13 billion, 600

million years ago, that's a third of a trillion, and we owe 16 of those babies, 16 trillion. so if they don't start turning the b, into a t, they won't make anything. and the unfunded liability of the united states and all -- in all programs is $63 trillion. people ask this all the time, the first question we usually get, why do we have these deficits? and we always come back with, well, what do you all think? we get about the same four answers every time. people say, it's waste, fraud, and abuse. it's foreign aid. it's oil subsidies. and nancy pelosi's airplane. those are the four we hear. and you know, all of those are just like little things. the big reason we have these deficits is first, health care. we spend twice as much as any

other developed country in the world on health care, whether you talk about as a percent of g.d.p. or on a per capita basis and the reason we spend twice as much is our outcomes, the things you measure, are not very good. we rank somewhere between 25th and 50th in things like infant mortality or life expectancy or preventable death. so health care is number one. we have to get the cost of health care under control. secondly, defense. we spend more than the next 14 largest countries combined on defense. you know, that is causing us to hollow out the rest of what we do in this country. we're not making the appropriate investments in education or infrastructure or high value added research. what we're doing doesn't make common sense. we have this treaty with taiwan

that we'll protect taiwan if they're envaded by the chinese. there's only one problem with that, we've got to borrow the money from china to do it. it's crazy. it's crazy what we do here. the third reason is, we give away half of our revenue in the form of back door spending in the tax code. and the plan we put forward, we said, look, let's get rid of all of these tax expenditures, 100% of them. let's use 92% of the money to reduce -- 92% of the money to reduce income tax rates and 8% of the money to reduce the deficit. if you do that, you can reduce the deficit by about $100 billion a year for 10 years, about $1 trillion. and you can take marginal rates

to 8% of the $7 -- up to $70,000. 14% up to $210,000. and have a maximum rate of 23%. and you can take the corporate rate to 26% and you can pay for a territorial system so that we can take the trillion to two trillion dollars captured overseas and bring it back to this country to create jobs over here and i think that would have real dynamic growth. our tax code is the third reason. the fourth reason is interest on the debt. i know you guys understand the power of compound interest. when interest rates rise back up and we get downgraded again, it is going to hit us like something you have never seen and that $1 trillion i talked about in 2020 of interest on the debt, won't even come close. >> when the tipping point comes, markets will decide it. it won't be anybody with a chart from white house or the

congress. the markets will decide when that time comes and interest rates creeps and inflation creeps and guess who gets hurt the most? the little guy. the most vulnerable people in society, people talk about, babble about, all day long around this place. >> let me just say one for more thing. that's a perfect example. we've talked so much crap about trying to make social security sustainably solvent. i am a democrat. and i thought democrats were supposed to be for something that would actually, you know, beef up the payment for the little guy and we did that. we took the minimum payment to 125% of poverty that costs money. we gave a 1% bump up to people between 81 and 86 because every republican and democrat economist told us that's when people's personal savings runs out. and we made the grave to -- the grave mistake, target the aarp,

we actually raised the retirement age. we raised it one year, 14 years from now. we want to give people a chance to get ready. but if you make small changes like that, you can make social security sustainably solvent. we did make the rate of growth of the payment we get in this room, we slowed it down. that's ok because we increase the payment to the people at the bottom. and again, the people that are attacking us, is aarp, who are supposed to be protecting these kind of people. makes me sick. >> when you reduce the payroll tax to stimulate the economy, guess what system goes further into insolvency? social security. >> gentlemen, i hate to interrupt this uplifting presentation. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> looking at our primetime schedule, starting in about 45 minutes, remarks from house republican leader eric cantor and treasury secretary tim geithner on the u.s. economy and jobs. on c-span2, florida senator marco rubio discusses a bipartisan jobs bill that he'll soon introduce. and under way noun on c-span3, the acting director of the federal housing agency testifies on compensation packages paid to c.e.o.'s of fannie maye and freddie mac.

>> my friends, to those who say we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late. for those who say, for those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say this -- the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and to work forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphreys spoke those words nearly 20 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the two-term mayor of minneapolis and -- was vice president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president and lost. we'll look at his influence on american politics on the c-span series "the contenders," from

the minnesota historical society in st. paul, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. some news on the mortgage and housing front. we talked about it on this morning's washington journal. guest: it's a pleasure to be here. i'm here to talk about the broad array of options for homeowners to avoid foreclosure. we'll hear more about harp, a refinance program, for borrowers who owe more on their home than it's worth, those are fannie maye and freddie mac loans, that's a retooled program that's been in existence and had almost a million homeowners take advantage of that program in the last two years. i'm also here today to talk

about the programs under way and tell you the milestone we've hit, there have been five million loan modifications to keep poem out of foreclosure since 2007 through our data to date. >> and the hope now alliance is helping people with these modifications. allowing -- explain what hope now is. >> hope now is a -- guest: hope now is a voluntary membership of servicers and investors who reach out to borrowers who need help on their mortgage, who are in trouble or at risk of foreclosure or who have not been in contact with their loan servicers. the harp freshman you mentioned, that's a refinance program. there are a lot of people current on their mortgage but they really want to take advantage of the low rate environment we're in. fannie maye and freddie mac, through fhsa are expanding the program for more borrowers, that's a hopeful sign for those not to go to foreclosure and

more details come out later today on -- today on that. host: who makes up the alliance? who pays your bills? guest: it's funded by loan servicers and investors who want to help people at risk and help them keep their homes from foreclosure but we don't take funds from the nonprofit housing. so it's a muechal -- neutral nonprofit alliances. host: do you have questions about mortgages or programs to help you with your mortgages, wo call in. host: you mentioned that this is a program that the obama administration has revisitted, the harp program. as i understand it, it was first proposed right after the obama administration took aufs.

why did it need to be revisitted? guest: i think at this point in the game, everyone is looking for every option we can to prevent foreclosures wherever possible. refinances are a fabulous option for people to not go into foreclosure, to lower their mortgage payments. for a borrower who owes more than the home is worth, it's difficult to get that financing. what i believe fannie maye and fred tee machave done is lifted the restrictions on that to see if there are more borrowers who could qualify for a refinance. they have the credit risk, this is just one of the options that will allow borrowers to have more dollars in their pocket or lower the terms of the refinance to 15 or 20 years and take advantage of the lower rates. it's a great option. >> do you have a sense of how many people you think this might be able to help? how many loans out there to help? when the first harp was proposed, as i understand it, they said there were 11 million

people out there with underwater mortgages this program could help but less than one million people actually took advantage of the program. >> that's complicated. fannie maye and freddie mac are not the only investors. this is not a sweeping refinance program for all loans but it is for fannie maye and freddie mac an option for boe rorse, -- borrowers who are between 80% and 125% loan devalue. they suggest that urnled a million more borrowers may be eligible for such refinance. it's important to keep perspective on the big picture. five million people have been helped through modifications, through restructuring of loans not to go to foreclosure. that's a huge number. there are under four million who have gone to foreclosure. we helped almost another million people to refinance to avoid going into foreclosure and going delinquent on their

loans. if you have another million, that's seven million people you're helping stay out of foreclosure. there are broad tools available. harp is one of them. refinances in general are one, if you're current on your mortgage, modifications, even short sales, there are a lots of -- a lot of ways to avoid foreclosure. host: help me understand why the obama administration is pushing these programs now? they see it as a way to give the economy a boost in general? guest: i don't speak for the administration, we're an independent alliance, nonpartisan. but we are happy to work with the administration and government programs. we work with them closely. they're looking for all the options to make sure that they're using all the tools they can to help this housing market. host: you mentioned the federal

housing finance agency, ed war demarco will be on capitol hill testifying with the senate banking committee, the senate housing -- housing and urban affairs committee on examining freddie and fannie. is he going to make these announcements about the harp program at that hearing? guest: i'm not familiar with what they'll announce today. i know they said further details on that refinance program will be forthcoming shortly. i believe this month we'll hear more from them on details of how to refinance your mortgage. if you're a fannie maye or freddie mac borrower, it's not automatic that you'll be eligible for this, there are restrictions, those will be released later. host: help me explain how the harp program came about. you said you worked with the

obama administration to develop these programs. guest: we've been working with fannie maye and freddie mac for several years, they've done a great job trying to prevent foreclosures but the regulator has come up with them on the details of the refinance with the objective of saying, what are the frictions in the system? why aren't people refinancing as much as we'd like them to? enge we'll hear those later today, i believe they lifted the loan devalue, which in a sense says if you have a value of -- under water of 25%, you're maxed out at the refinance option. i think they lifted that criteria. host: so you can be even farther under water. guest: right, but there are details they haven't released yet. we've worked with fannie and freddie on several programs. the government has programs, but the private industry has

restructured or refinanced 4.1 million loans. the making home affordable, which is run by the treasury department has been a good, structured program but that's been about 00,000 modifications to reach that full five million. so we're here today to remind people there are many options to avoid foreclosure. when we hear on the news it's only foreclosure, it's important to know that the solutions have far outweighed foreclosure sales for borrowers and we want to keep that the case and keep stabilizing the economy and housing host: when this program was announced back at the end of of october, "the wall street journal" did a story about the harp home lend regular vamp plan and they offer a few of the details. it says the plan will streamline the refinance program.

host: they are revamping a program rolled out two years ago which would let those with less than 20% equity refinance if they're backed by fannie maye and fred tee mac. one question i have is, one of the issue is you have to be current on your payments, correct? so it helping the people in the most trouble if somebody is current on their payments they've been making their payments every month, why would they need to makes you of the program? guest: i think that's a great question. what you have to think about are the people who are current, we want to have people to have the most incentive to keep their homes, stay in their mortgages and be able to make an affordable payment. there are many people, million perhaps, who are making high mortgage pames, who can't take

advantage of refinancing because they owe more than a house is worth. most lenders won't refinance loans if you owe more than the house is worth. the harp program allowed relief on that program. i'm hopeful, i speak for myself only, that this will add to avoiding foreclosures on people starting to go delinquent. i think we underestimate the number of people feeling that stress. host: a question from twitter from doug, who wants to know the history of this, who is encouraging these loans, the bank, realtors or government? >> these are primarily the loans that have started to feel threat, not your traditional subprime loan. these are standard loans, they have good credit, the borrowers, just taking advantage of good environment we're in for the credit and the

right environment. so both lenders and the regulators, fannie and freddie would be good stake holders in wanting to do this. host: two questions coming in. first charles on the independent line from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. here's the big problem with all this, maybe it isn't, maybe i'm missing something. i do short sales, i do bank owned properties for a living, i deal with people who are under water all day long. that's what i do for a living. my biggest problem, here's my instance, i've been making all my house payments, haven't missed payments at all but the house payments are so onerous because of the economy and i go to refinance, well, heck, i've got bad credit now or not good enough credit. of course i'm almost under water on my house an everything else. you go to bank of america, go to wells fargo and say, look, i've been making my house payments for two years, but i need some relief. i'm sitting here almost

bankrupt, about ready to go into a short sale situation, can you help me? their response is, your credit isn't good enough. and all my short sale people, this is a really great thing, is that they can't even declare a short sale until they start not making their payments. short sales can take six to eight months to clear up because of a bunch of garbage. host: you're shaking your head. guest: he's bringing up excellent points. this is not a perfect system. fers of all if you're current on your mortgage and you have a chance to refinance, i don't want to oversell that because many may not be eligible but if you're eligible, take advantage of it through fannie and freddie so you don't fall into a delinquent credit situation. short sales are still not with where they need to be and i hear you loud and clear. i do know if you go to foreclosure versus a short sale and for those listening, a short sale means selling your

house for less than it's worth so the investor takes a loss, and perhaps the borrower. but you can get new credit after a two-year period and that will be relieved of your credit report versus the seven-year period for a foreclosure. so you know if you can get to a short sale and i think lenders, realtors, the government, the treasury department are all working hard at making that process a better process. we've been looking hard at that as well. but modifications are again probably one of your best bets if you can get a modification and you have cash flow and you can make an affordable payment, that is where we've seen five million of those to date through october of 2011. host: james on the republican line from newark, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you have a question? caller: i do. now, i notice throughout the country, people live beyond their means.

and it costs money to live beyond your means. me and my fiancee, we live within our means, and my sister who is a doctor, who makes $250,000 a year, she lives within her means also. i buy secondhand furniture from -- she buys secondhand furniture from salvation army. this country, if you live within the means don't have to have the new package that's coming out. host: do you disagree with this new program and help out people who are under water? caller: if people live within their means and don't have to have the new nikes and don't have to have the new big screen tv, don't have to have all those things, live within their means instead. host: ms. schwartz, how much pushback has there been against

the new programs? guest: i think it's important to note, this is not a wide, sweeping, subsidized government program. this is someone who owns a credit risk of a higher rate and they are still getting the same borrower, who is current, and offering a lower credit -- a lower rate to make a loan. so it is not particularly a taxpayer subsidy, matching government reductions. i think that's an important distinction. he's right. we've all tried to revamp our lifestyles and this has been a difficult economy but we need to unlock the housing market through refinances. we need to fix loans where possible through modification so everyone is a winner and communities get stable. host: there are several people who have disagreed with this program. eugene robinson in a column today talks about mitt romney's disagreement with the program. he wrote, at wednesday's debate, romney said the obama administration has tried to hold off on foreclosure, on the

foreclosure process, the normal market process. asked if he would just let foreclosures proceed, no matter the impact, romney answered with a question, what would you do instead? have the federal government buy all the homes in america? that's not going to happen in america, markets work. has there been a push to let the markets handle it? guest: this is my opinion only, i can't speak for all of hope now. it's important to say, while the government has made noble efforts on their programs, much of the modification effort, the restructured loans works for the investors, borrowers and loan servicer, are not government financed. 4.1 million mortgages have been restructured to avoid foreclosure. if they went to foreclosure, the investor would have taken a bigger loss, there's a test you have to run with every modification. so the market is working more than people realize and

modifications exceed foreclosures by over a million, to date. foreclosure sales are less than four million from 2007 to 2011. host: to william on the democratic line from chesapeake, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. ms. schwartz, i am current on my mortgage and i wanted to get a lower interest rate, and i tried to refinance, and i can't get -- i can't refinance. they won't let me refinance. guest: well, who -- have you gone to your current lender who has your loan and servicer? because -- do you owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth? host: i think we lost him there, i'm sorry. guest: refinancing is tricky. lending standards have tightened in this recession. clearly, the investor have tightened, freddie mac and fannie maye have tightened.

refinancing isn't as easy as it was once, we all know that, we're going through an adjustment period. host: to martin on the independent line from spring lakes, new jersey. caller: good morning, ms. is wards. what about attempts to help homeowners in distress but i want to tell you your efforts are misguide. the banks are not forthcoming, they're not telling the truth. when they entered the loans into computer disks to participate in the merge system which encompasses 60% of the loans outstanding in this country, they destroyed the security of the loan by destroying the notes. once the notes were destroyed, their interest in the loan was destroyed with it. the banks are not in position to modify or refinance loans because they're no longer holding the secure interest in the note. in other words, they the stroyed the pink slip. roughly 15 years ago.

and they're not telling the truth about it because they're trying to persuade people who are in distress to refinance or modify. host: can you explain what's going on? guest: thank you for your comments. i think the gentleman is referring to the merge electronic registration system which keeps the assignment of where the mortgage is assigned to. it's my understanding that notes are with custodians and copies of certified notes but it's a long process to get and provide that ownership. it has been messy, sir, but i think we're getting past the worst parts of that and we're seeing the processes and technical barriers lifted but i hear you and understand your comments. host: to laura on the democratic line from california. good morning. caller: good morning. ok, my problem is that -- my credit is great, i'm working two jobs, my jk is -- income is great, i refinanced two years

ago but my interest rate is still high, i qualify -- i hear people saying i'm just about under water, maybe at 100% value on my home, my credit score is almost 800, but the bank won't talk to me. chase bank won't talk to me. they won't talk to me about the refie. they won't talk to me. guest: right. well i can share it is a problem. i think it's one of the parts of the housing market that's locked up is under water borrowing. some estimate that 25% of the homeowners are under water on their mortgage, what they owe on the home versus what it's worth. our programs such as fannie maye and fre dee macare programs that hopefully you may qualify, if you're current and at the 100% loan devalue but you may not be owned by that investor. f.h.a. has a streamline, which is a government program, a government refinance program, which doesn't require an appraisal either, so i'm not

sure if you're an f.h.a. loan. if your lender is telling you they can't refinance, it's probably because they need you to bring 10% down or lower the down payment. for some of these if you have savings, you may want to consider a down payment and refinance into a program with tighter credit. host: help me understand. i understand the rules don't require the refinanced mortgage to be obtained through the original lender, correct? guest: i believe that's right. host: so what's the incentive for another lender to take on an under water mortgage? how are you encouraging lenders to get involved in this? guest: i can only share, hope now is just really working all the solutions so we don't necessarily get too engaged in the detail bus when major lenders have already had that risk at, let's say, 125% and they're servicing those mortgages and they participate in this program, they will have a lower propensity to default if they take advantage of the

lower rate through this refinance program. they would have a lot of incentive if they own the loan. if they service the loan and it's already on the fannie maye and freddie mac books. host: the other question i have, is if this program, who is going to be taking the loss here? if the homeowners are being helped out, is fannie and freddie taking the loss because they'll be earning less other the long run than what they thought they were? is it the mortgage investors? guest: mortgage investors will receive the moneys back, for a refinance. a refinance means you're paying off the old debt and taking on a new loan. it's very different than a modification where you're restructuring the same loan. refinance means the investor gets paid back at the same percent. and the government is an investor, some are plivet

investors an panks. they do get 100% of the principal back. i think that's probably important to know. host: there's a lot of hearings today about fannie and freddie and people's concerns with them. the house financial services committee is having a markup on a bill introduced by chairman spencer bacchus that would suspend compensation packages to top executives at fannie maye and freddie mac. are they in a position to take on this new program where they won't be making as much money when they're trying to pay back the government for bailout money that was put in? guest: let me be clear. my only comments about fannie and fre freddie, they have the capacity to handle the refinances, they have broad systems and opportunities to take on refinances. they aren't their own investors, there are other investors who will take losses on that. the bigger picture is, refinances is one vehicle that's helpful to unlocking the

housing business. we had five million loan modify keagses that have made those people, except those who have may have redefaulted and gone into foreclosure, that's seven million solutions other than foreclosure. right now, we need to stabilize housing. so i think we need to keep our eye on the big picture here. host: we talked about ed demarco. you can check out his hearing at 10:00 a.m. on c-span.org. and the mark up with with spencer bacchus' bill is live on c -- bacchus' bill is live on c-span.org. to robert on the independent line. caller: good morning. i don't feel the people in the united states are really hearing a lot of the truth and here's my opinion. being in the banking business 25 years, my career has changed

due to the subprime and derivatives and this meltdown and thank god finally i'm seeing a silver lining just this last sex months to a year with a new career. but here's the problem. anyone who paid on time, on their mortgage, with no 30-tai lates, up to early 2008, 2008, should automatically be forgiven and should be an easy process. the federal government should at least say, for the next two years, all you have to make is interest payments. in the beginning of 2008 is when all this huge meltdown happened, on top of the bush and cheney administration, on top of welcome of job creation, and starting a recession eight years previous. and then whoever was going to be elected, whether obama or clinton, it didn't matter. they were left with what they were left with and we're trying to do damage control. why is it that people, an even myself, i was in banking, i got paid by the closing of the

loan, like a realtor, commission. so it's hard for me to do a loan modification because they want to see solid income on a new job or documented employment. so a lot of people in the banking, mortgage realed and real estate, that were realtors, that have lost their mortgages or had trouble, here's the other example. anyone right now listening to me that cannot work with the attorneys that are working for the banks, here's what you need to do, if you can't afford an attorney, you can do it for about $300 yourself. file your own chapter 13 pro se. get the same paperwork the attorney is going to print out, you can print off your local district for your bankruptcy in your state, county, region, file it, go down in front of the judge, raise your hand and tell them you want protection from the bank under chapter 13. host: robert brings up a lot of different options. there are a lot of options out there some of the options you

brought up tissue he brought up, what do you think? guest: the government hasn't really tried to change contracts with every single investor, that would rear a wholesale change in contracts if you say across the board, let everyone make interest only that said, treasury has put out $7.5 billion to help people in the hardest hit states and that can help augment the modification process, the unemployment process, even principal writedown. there is help out there, you have to know where it is. 888-955-hope. the homeowners hopeline. it's run by the home ownership preservation and they have certified h.u.d. housing counselors, 888-955-hope, is -- 995-hope. host: 888-995-hope.

to mike from sarasota. caller: foorning. thank you. i wanted to confirm what the first caller was talking about with the entire modification process. i'm under water in my mortgage and i contacted my lender and asked to look into the modification, but since i am current, they said no, you have to stop payments for a few months before we would work with you on a modification and if ms. schwartz, if you could explain to myself and the other callers what impact the modification possess has on your credit, i would be greatly appreciative. thank you. guest: thank you. thank you for the call. there are two things going on. i would just say, i'm not sure if you've had a change in expenses or drop in your income but there is an option for you to get a modification if you are in imminent default which means you're experiencing a hardship and you're paying a much higher amount of your

income to your mortgage because of an increase in expense or drop in income. modifications will hurt your credit, because you will be delinquent at some point. typically, people are delinquent, though there are exceptions to letting current borrowers getting a modification. i would say, you know, people that are current is less prevalent. it's mostly people who are behind and the arch person is behind over a year on the mortgage before they steams even get a modification. it's a real range. the average days to go to foreclosure in the united states is over 600 days across the country. but i do encourage you to work with your lender on that because it sounds leek you have some hardship and you may be qualified and be persistent and call -- use egg -- use a housing counselor if you're not getting that clear answer. host: we're talking with faith schwartz of the hope now

director. where did you work before now? guest: i've worked in the banking industry, fannie maye, freddie mac, was an entrepreneur for six years. host: what did you do at freddie? guest: i worked in transactions and sales effort, i know the banks and players pretty well. host: to paul on the independent line -- to yvonne from the independent line. caller: i received, my husband and i received a notice from chase bank, our mortgager, that we would be eligible to refinance. when i called them to find out if we could refinance, i tole them the mortgage amount and said we had a $50,000 equity but we had the equity loan with a credit union. immediately he said i'm not eligible for the harp. i said, what would be my options? he said pay off the $50,000 equity loan and then come back

and talk to us. guest: yeah, and so, i don't know all the details, in fact they're not all forthcoming, i believe they're coming out this week, on the details of harp but that's not necessarily unusual. they don't want second lien financing or seconds, piggyback financing on the first lien. you can sometimes resubordinate that, i don't know your loan devalue but that could be one of the rules. so again, they're looking for certain first lien refinance and when you have equity lines and second leeps that gets complicated in refinances. host: i wonder, the educational effort being rolled out with the harp program, how will you let people know it's available and ensure its success? guest: you know, hope now and lots of other, it's not incumbent on -- i think it's incumbent on the people offering it, fannie maye, fred

tee mac, the nonprofit housing counselors, can i assist. we need clear direction on who is eligible and who isn't, those the tails aren't out. but we need strong spoth for borrowers. one thing hope now is doing, we have been doing for five years, i wish we were out of business because the economy was better. we'll be in portland, oregon, next month. we were just in houston, texas, and we meet with borrowers and go through their options with servicers and counselors. host: to bill on the independent line from florida. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. ms. schwartz, your message is quite optimistic in contrast to

the reports in the paths, admittedly, i haven't read the third quarter reports. but there's severe criticism of hamp. that's my comment. my question is, what is the end game? what are your goals or objectives? at what point do these programs start to wrap up and say, ok, now, market, you're back on your own. guest: that's a great question, sir. here's why i'm a fan of the hamp program. everyone who signed up for it which is the vast majority of servicers in the country, have to look for eligibility that borrowers could be eligible for the government program. for a lot of reasons, they're not always eligible. what's important is the servicer has modified loans with lower principal and interest payments, five years fixed rate, 80% of the time that 4.1 million private loan mods is after hamp has been reviewed. i like the government program that it added structure and process and a protection pack

aling for borrowers. i am optimistic because we have done five million loan modifications. up to a million harp refonses have occurred. the regulators suggest another million may be possible. that's seven million families that have avoided the stress of a foreclosure. some of those do redefault. we understand the nature of it. but as long as we're ahead of the foreclosure sales, and i want you to think through this, we're ahead of the tsunami that's been hitting the united states on housing. that's our goal. our goal is to stay ahead of that and help borrowers with every tool that's available, whether it's government or private. host: let's run through a few more calls. bernie on the democratic line. caller: good morning. host: do you have a question? caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. i listened to all your callers and i have a question. and just a short comment. the question is, first of all, i don't even know what harp is,

do you have any type of context -- contact information for those viewers that have no idea what you're talking about but may need the help? and i would like to say that i appreciate the numbers that you're giving as far as the many, many people that have been helped. i am -- that just warm misheart, however, there's still other people like your callers who have been calling in to say that you have bad credit, when you hit this bad economy, and i just like to hope that the people that are listening, some of those are our representatives that understand that people with bad credit vote too. thank you. guest: i think you've got the right comments. we have to look at what can be done going forward. we need to be bold in our policies, including the

government. i don't work for the government. but we have to keep thinking thru options to help homeowners get through this. host: and the caller asked for a place to go? guest: the fannie maye and fred tee macwebsites are probably the best places to go. hopenow.com is another, which is our website, which we can post some new, updated information once released on harp. host: and you have a call in number? guest: 888-995-hope, that's manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, several languages to help homeowners who need help. host: to john on the democratic loan from california. caller: good morning. my wife and i have lived in our home for 13 years. i'm on social security, she works. and this past yearing we have fallen behind in our mortgage.

wachovia holds the note. we're trying to get a loan modification with them. what i would like to know is, is there any help for people that don't have good credit? what can we do to convince them that we -- that we deserve to stay in our home? we've been there 13 1/2 years. guest: listen, sir, if you have an affordable payment you can make and you -- your investor or wachovia or wells fargo, who owns wachovia, they certainly work with hundreds of thousands of people in your same situation. that is what the modification efforts are all about. people do have some deterioration on credit who get those modifications, so i encourage you to work with a third party housing counselor if you're not in strong contact

with your servicer. i think you need to call them directly to get the help, as well. they're very tuned into this and they've all been doing a much, much bigger job in the last year or two. i mean, they're well resourced, they've put a lot of money and systems and technology into this. they fully understand what you're going through. call a third party housing counselor if you need extra detailed help on that. host: and one other question about the harp program, the details will be announced today, i just want to understand how the president was able to do this without going through congress? there was this announcement at the end of october, some discussion about when he was doing it, why was he able to do that? guest: i can't speak for them all. i don't work for them. but fhsa is an independent regulator and they probably looked at all their options with the refinance and see what was good for both fannie maye and freddie mac, the investor, and the homeowners to keep them

in their homes and work through the details and said we need to keep housing stable. i think, frankly, fhsa is probably the one that drove that, certainly working in concert with the administration but at the end of the day, it's their decision. host: any thoughts on what mr. demarco of the housing agency will be testifying about? guest: i have no idea. we think of that as one tool in a broad range of tool to help people. we are grateful for the harp program but i would not say it's the dominant solution out there. we have seen a higher number of loan modifications be helpful where refinances don't make sense. host: thank you. >> we'll talk about spending and the budget on "washington journal." jim mcdermott joins us and representative bob goodlatte talking about his balanced budget amendment. also, yuval levin about his

story on the philosophy underpinning everything. that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> for those who say my -- my friends, for those who say we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late. for those who say, for those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say this -- the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and ato walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphreys spoke those words nearly 0 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the two-term mayor of minneapolis was