department personnel at risk if they moved away from those compounds and actually got out to travel the countryside and attempt to build a stronger, healthier nation? >> obviously that is the purpose of having the security detail with them. i also want to say that our hope would be that this is not just a state department presence but that ultimately we will be able to negotiate further presence for the military as well. >> thank you for saying that. i would just say sometimes in the white house, elbows 5. you have been there. you know they do. would you bring to bear your experience and best judgments? would you be sure that it is

well discussed the dangers of the total removal of the military and totally turning this over to the state department? >> i think everyone understands the risks involved here and that is the reason we are in negotiations with trying to maintain a military presence that can assist them to provide the right security. >> i remember secretary condoleezza rice saying to me that she was prepared to call any member of the state department if they needed to, in the theater, and ask them personally to go. there reveals the fact that state department personnel are not required to have the same duty to go into dangerous areas. first of all, thank you, general

come up for your service in iraq and the war on terror, and all those men and women who have gone into harm's way, gone were ever they have been asked to go even if it was dangerous. state department personnel and not designed to do that in the same way, and i believe we will lose something if we are not successful in maintaining a military presence. thank you, mr. chairman. i know that the votes have started, so you guys can relax. >> white do we not just go on now? >> we thank you very much for your testimony. we appreciate all you do for our troops and their families. we moved the second panel now, even though it vote has begun. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we will begin with this panel, i will try to catch the end of the first vote, but the second vote, -- vote the second vote. >> there was a story a withdrawal from the administration that when obama was given the first budget and there were 6000 earmarks in it, his first instinct was to veto. he was told by the lobbyists and that there was no way to do that, to cut the entire bill. had he vetoed that, he would have been te tea party.

if you would have shown his fundamental decision to change washington, he could have continued to rally the reform movement breaking out all over the world because of the frustration of the current with that democracy does not function. >> harvard law professor lawrence lessig and the influence of money on washington tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> joining us this week, oklahoma senator tom coburn. thank you for being with us. >> glad to be with you. >> we want to talk about the supercommittee and some of the details that may or may not come out in the next few days, but let me ask you the larger question -- why is it so hard for this congress and for democrats and republicans to reach a compromise? >> because there's fundamental tenants that they embraced that they are thinking about in the

short term rather than thinking about in the long term. i think what we have seen is pretty significant movement to offer revenue, which that was the line in the sand, and that has been breached now. seems to me there ought to be a real counterproposal for that and then some real negotiating, but it is difficult because what they are thinking is they are thinking is how was this with respect to the election, -- how does this affect the election, how does this affect the control of the house and senate rather than how does this affect the public? the self-interested decision making rather than long-term interest -- i do not say that, but that is the common denominator.

everybody is interested in the next election and never getting to the point where we actually fix the point. >> the committee mandated with $1.20 trillion in cuts. you propose $9 trillion in cuts. >> just remember -- we are going to cut $9 trillion over the next 10 years or we are going to be in trouble. nobody is going to loan us the money. it is not going to happen. it is like bernanke said. we will fix medicare. we will solve our spending problems. we will control the federal government because there will be no way for us to do it other than actually making the cuts. the only other option is to create a currency which forces inflation on us tremendously, which actually hurts the lowest of the middle income and lowest income in our country. it is called financial repression. people do not understand what that means. that means the earning power is less than the inflation every year. whether it be stopped or savings account or your retirement or your home in relative values, your purchasing

power diminishes. >> based on what we have seen the past few days, how hopeful are you that we can get to this much more modest goal of $1.20 trillion? >> i would not give up hope yet. things never get solved until they have to. lowry said that earlier. it never happens until it has to. -- laurie said earlier. the last few hours is monday night. my hope and prayer would be that everybody in that room thinks about what is going to happen to us two years from now when we have not done this, if we have two years. i am not sure we have two years. we can solve our problem, but what is happening in europe can easily spread to us. the interest rate differential between a german bond and an italian bond has risen 400

basis points. that is 4%. take $16 trillion, 4% on that, you have $640 billion of additional interest a year. $640 billion wipes us out. there will not be any medicaid. there will not be any medicare close to what it is today if we do not do it. that is our risk. the fed can print all the money and buy all the bonds they want, but with that comes diminished buying power and less value for everything you buy. >> it seems like the crux of the disagreement at this point seems to be the extension of the bush tax cuts with republicans wanting to make sure that are extended and democrats wanted to make sure that there is no such guarantee. based on what you have heard, read, experienced, talk to your colleagues about, is that where the disagreements like? >> again, i do not know that anybody knows unless you are in the room where it is. but let's assume they are right -- why would you not want -- in

other words, the whole intention of the offer was we will give the revenue, but let's fix the tax cuts that will generate growth. notother problem is we're generating jobs and we have a mismatch on 2.5 million jobs in the country that we have today but cannot fill because we do not have the educational system set up to fill it. two things in this country where market forces do not work -- education and health care, and the government is running all of it -- or 2/3 of it. let's assume that is where that is. why should that be a sticking point? as we say, we are going to reform the tax cut -- the tax code, and then change it if it

is not working. the last thing you want to do is raise -- most of these people in the upper bracket are small business owners who are either limited liability corporations or sub s corporations, which means they will pay individual tax rates, which removes a barrier to create jobs because you will actually take more from job creators. it is about how do we have a tax system in our country that will actually generate capital investment and not misdirect it like our tax code does today. >> talk was about the tax issue. you famously went up against grover norquist, the president of americans for tax reform, earlier this year on the no tax pledge, and what is in the republican not to get on taxes. what is going on? >> it is burned once, burned twice, do not get burned again. in the last 30 years, there have been two instances where republicans have cut a deal to raise taxes for spending cuts,

and spending cuts did not materialize. they were part of the problem, too. our problem on spending is not republicans or democrats. it is both. i agree with atr, but there will never be 60 of me here to make that happen. how do we solve the problems in front of our country if in fact we are not going to increase the revenue of the federal government? i can show each of you an idea where you could agree with $350 million we could take out of the budget tomorrow. there are tons of things we all would agree on, no matter what our political philosophy. the bigger question is -- why have we not done it? the press, i believe, has given grover way too much attention and ignored arp, which is exactly the same force on the other side, which is you cannot touch entitlements.

they are both running ads. they are both generating letters. they are doing all the things they can. a real world as we will have to have revenue increases and we have to fix entitlements. forget what your party is. forget what your stand is. in fact we are at the point in time that i think we are, it will not matter whether it is republican or democrat control of the white house or party because the international financiers will be telling us what to do, just like they are telling greece today and getting ready to tell italy and will eventually tell france. it is coming to us if we do not get our house in order. >> but as our economy difference in greece and france? >> because we have the federal reserve? that is the only real difference. we have much less of a manufacturing base than germany and france. the only difference we have is we have our own central bank and the agreement that allows us to do the reserve currency in the world, so we can cheat the rest of the world.

we can just print money. but what does that do? there is no difference in us doing that and having high inflation and undermining the future of the people that follow us. but what is really disgusting about it is in the name of passionate liberalism, you want to help those that need the help the most by not cutting these entitlement programs. you are actually going to hurt people because what money they do have will buy far less. >> stuck on the tax issue, you supported revenue increase as part of the gang of six. now, you see senators like senator toomey and kyle along. do you believe that the republican party is starting to move and change its more rigid position on tax increases? >> it is not tax increases. it is revenue increases. we want to see a vibrant economy that generates what is necessary

for the federal government. because we have moved does not mean we do not think the government is way outside its bounds, but we are willing to say to get a deal, we will do those things. one of the requirements of the deal is reforming the tax code. they could take to advantage of it in a far more effective way and we are essentially subsidizing. if he just takes tax credits and not any credits, and tax write-offs, $19 billion a year to the wealthiest people in the country? let's get rid of that. everybody can agree to that. >> but that is a problem. back to the anti-tax pledge -- >> that is the fight we had with grover. if you take a credit away -- with the american people understand is money goes out of the federal till. whether it is through an

appropriation coat or a tax code, you are still spending money. grover refuses that. it is spending our money on people we should not be spending the money on, and there is no difference. he lost that battle with me. he will lose it with america. >> mr. norquist is having sizable influence over your party and over the super committee -- >> i do not think he is. if grover norquist was having that much influence, why did pat toomey put up what he put up? he is not. it does not matter what he thinks. it does not matter what aarp thinks. what matters is we have to fix our country. and you appreciate the super committee will not be able to accomplish the nominal tax reform in the time frame given, especially -- are there individual expenditures you can identify? >> could give you a list. i cannot name the now, but i

have them written down. you say congress out of the super committee -- if we get an agreement, we will reform the tax code. present tax code expires in three months. now, write a tax code that does not have all this junk in it. and all these special favors for special people in special industries, special districts, special zones. get rid of it. you have a 7800-page tax code right now, and what you have is a 200-page tax code. you can do that. what people think you cannot do in washington, the average american says, "why not?" you can. they did not want to get it done. they live in a bubble year. they are self-reinforcing limitations, and that is our real problem with congress.

the vast majority of people in congress have a political background rather than a background outside of politics. they do not know what they do not know, and they do not know what you can get done because they set the rules. erase everything and start over. >> with all due respect, you were in a similar position earlier this year as part of the talks with the gang of six, the bipartisan group of six democratic and six republican senators that were trying to solve this very issue. for a time, you walked away from those talks. called it at the time because of the issue -- >> but i did it to prove a point. we are sitting up here looking at $3.20 trillion, and i went back and showed where you could get $9 trillion. most people, no matter what their political belief in this country, can look at that and find $3 trillion or $4 trillion

and say we could get rid of it. i went after it in the pentagon. that is not with conservative republicans do, but there's not any area of the pentagon that does not waste money. the point is i went back. we got an additional $170 billion on entitlement reform, and we had a good enough deal to solve the problem. >> you talk about if you are wealthy, whether you should qualify for some tax breaks. if you work for 30 or 40 years and you are a millionaire and pay into social security, should you get social security? >> if we can afford it, you bet, but what if we cannot afford it? what you're going to do is not get it here or you are going to get it here and tax it over here? what is the difference? there is no difference. the fact is we have design these programs for everybody to build so we can give everybody support for entitlements.

the difference is let's say we give it to you. we have to get taxes from you anyway. if all it is is which part are you taking it out of. if you want social security to be viable, you have to change it. and it is not viable. we ran a $56 billion deficit last year. there's a trust fund because of was the president would never have qualified. canada has a social security system. it is in great shape because they had it means tested and earnings tested. if you make over a certain amount, you did not get social security. what is the difference in social

security compared to taxing you more? there is none. it is the same pot of money. >> i did not think we will see social security reform in the context of the supercommittee. we're looking at a distinct possibility that they may fail. how confident are you that the sequestration process is an adequate that and that it will actually happen if the super committee fails. >> i will not vote for anything that does not allow it to happen appear let me say in context -- we have done nothing to cut spending it. this whole year, all these debates, no spending has been cut. congress lied. republicans, democrats, american people hear what happened with the budget control act is we increased spending over the next 10 years. that is the story that never got covered. the media and washington headed out what members of congress on both sides said. we have to cut spending, not slow the rate of growth. we have to cut spending.

we passed a bill that increased spending $850 billion, and then put this $1.20 trillion sticker on it. but we accepted the budget from it. so we take defense, which is a large portion of our budget, and then across the top, no manager i know what ever run their business or organization that way. it would ask what is a greater priority and a lesser priority. the sequestration -- everything gets cut. which is a stupid way to do it. >> and congress would have a year to under this. -- to undo this. do you think that is a distinct possibility? >> they will be worrying about what is happening to our interest rates by then. this is coming quickly. we do not have a year before the first signs of that site impacting us. >> on that note, what do you think happens? this thanksgiving comes and goes --

>> we get another debt downgrade, and rightly so. >> the gang of six -- that group never did produce publicly a piece of legislation. >> we never intended to. what we were trying to do was push the discussion, and there are discussions now about putting that back together in case it fails. >> as you watch what happens with the super committee, do you have any regrets that the gang of six did not go any further with its proposals? >> no, first of all, remember, the gang of six is six senators. not sanctioned, not anything. but 51 senators right now would really like to see something gets done. the question is how to get there. what we lack is leadership in washington. we lacked leadership in the senate. how much has harry been saying, "it will not want you out of here without a deal?"

i have said the same thing to the republican members. do not talk to the press. just work it out. we did not have that kind of support working into it. >> right now, we are the only non-wilted rose in the base in the western world. part of it is fear of having your money in the you're right now. the 30-year note today was 2.98%. >> democratic ratings agencies have made it clear that it is not necessarily failure that would trigger a downgrade, but

watering down the trigger. >> again, i would say they are very vulnerable. they did a terrible job on all the subprime stuff and all the packages they did. i think they are very cautious. you could make a great legal case that if they overrate american debt and you see these bonds, that they are going to have a legal problem from not accurately doing it. i do not pay as much attention to what they say. i look at what the financial condition of the country is. if i were an investor, i would worry about that. relative to other areas in the world where you can invest better. >> you have been really outspoken about ways that the pentagon and wasteful spending. could you share with us some of the areas you think could be targeted by the super committee? >> the small areas. we have schools -- i think we have 46 of them. the school in town costs

$12,000. why would people spend four or five times as much? we have commissaries where we have grocery stores. why could you not combine those? grocery and the px under one management team. there's all sorts of ways. every four-star general down to every officer i see in your area of responsibility -- could you find it? >> it makes sense, but are you getting support from your colleagues? >> no, you are not. at it from that depth. as a former businessman and accountant, i look at those things because first of all, the biggest problem with the defense department is they do not know what they have got. they do not know what it costs, and they do not know where it is because they cannot measure anything. one of the great things about secretary panetta is that he is committed to moving them where

they can start measuring what they are doing. you can effectively do some big changes. >> it could be a good thing. >> but it is going to be a bad thing because you will take things that are a priority for the country and cut them when you should be cutting something else. let me give you one other example. on our major weapons systems purchases, most of the time, they are at risk. reason is because there is no adult in the room that says requirement great stops. we get a new idea for a new airplane and keep adding revenues and build the plane that was the original new idea, and when we decide to buy more at a later date and an upgrade. we just continue with development costs. contractors love it. there is no adult in the room that says we're not going to do any better. our overruns -- the overruns are unbelievable. everything that they are buying -- nothing is coming in on budget. nothing. >> secretary panetta has made

it clear he thinks the sequester would be devastating. >> i think it would be. >> your colleagues have been talking about doing this. what do you think their chances are. >> i will go back to the point i made. a sequester is a bad idea. if they want to undo it but get the same amount of money, i am how to help them do that, which means we will put common sense, continued to fund the things that are important but really cut the things that are not. >> was the supercommittee a good idea or a mistake? >> it was washington's answer to kicking the can down the road. it was a mistake. debt limit -- there is no such

thing as a debt limit in the united states. it has never not been passed. there is no debt limit. every time the politicians old, will not make the cuts come keep the can down the road and pass the debt limit. that is what america is upset about. everybody in this country today is making hard choices. the vast majority are. they are having to make hard choices. this is just another way of kicking the can down the road. after the sequestration, we will still spend more money than we did before. there will be no net cuts the size of the federal government acted this is all true. that is why we're not going to get out of our debt problem. that is why we're going to get a downgrade. people will see what we are doing and say there is no

political will in the united states to make the tough decisions to solve the problems in front of us. >> thanks for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> we continue the conversation with lisa and heidi. what did you learn? >> i was really surprised that he thought that failure by the super committee might trigger an immediate credit downgrade. i have talked personally with standard and poor's and moody's, and they made it clear that failure would not necessarily lead to a downgrade, but watering down this trigger would. the senator makes a very good point that the public and the markets and credit ratings agencies may very well see through this. when you look at the raw numbers, we will be making no net cuts. our spending is on such an unsustainable trajectory that in fact, it could have very bad consequences. >> at the -- i thought it was telling. telling.