approach to this chicago summit in one of two ways. its low level of representation could be interpreted as we just don't really care about nato. one could interpret it negatively. or one could interpret positively that putin is not strong enough and chicago is a spoiler. he's decided this -- how do you look at it? >> i like your glass half full description. it's curious. . russia should be there. i think the excuse was that he has to be present for government formation. that's really the job of a new prime minister. so it's hard to pars this statement by the russian government. but i think here's an example. they have been skillful under

chanceler hurricanele in having economic discussions with russia. so here's a very good example of where germany could lead in the future and help the united states and the united kingdom to rebuild our badly weak bridges to the russian leadership as president putin takes power and we must do this because russia's just too important and russia is both in some ways an adversary, not in military terms, but politically, but in some ways it's a friend and partner of the united states. we want to accentuate the friendship and partnership. i think chanceler merkel is perfectly placed to be that bridge for the u.s. to russia. >> terry murphy. good day, sir. quick comment and a two-part question. comment number one is you kind of overlooked the trans-atlantic business dialogue which has been going

on for 20 years quite prominently. but secondly on the question of germany, last week i think it was captain harry whales, junior officer of the british army, got an award from the beneficiary council for his efforts to support the wounded warriors of britain and we know that the wounded warriors here are supported by the populous. there was a piece in the paper that wounded warriors are not because they don't know what to do with -- the germans haven't internalize their people are actually fighting. last week the day after captain whales got his prince harry, in case anybody didn't get my joke, got his award, the british minister, foreign office minister for europe, elsewhere in washington, got an ear full of how britain was not

helping germany integrate militarily. it was still apple biff lens. i don't know that that's true but he got an ear full elsewhere about continued of a biff lance on the part of the -- ambilulence and elsewhere. two-part question. probably too long. whatever you say will be terrific. >> thank you very much. i'll be brief. if you do look at the -- our zev tif summary in the body of the report we recommend that the united states promote a trans-atlantic partnership that is going to be primarily economic and business oriented to sustain our vital economic ties with europe and that we begin to think as we are doing in asia with the trans-pacific partnership, democratic nations align economically, why not a realignment and a reinforcement of the investment, trade and business links across the

atlantic as well as the european allies? so that's a prominent feature of the report that speaks to your first question. >> it is no accident that nick is sitting in the same chair that tom donahue was sitting in not too long ago because we are also very eager to push forward this trans-atlantic economic partnership. we see it as a single piece of the deepening and strengthening of nato. >> the atlantic council was right to honor prince harry and by honor britain, our greatest ally. i cannot agree that britain has any kind of responsibility or is deficient in its relationship with germany. i was not aware with that and i wouldn't agree with that point of view. i would just like to inject a tone of sympathy for germany. it's been very difficult for the german leadership over the last 15 years or so to deploy

to kosovo and then to afghanistan. germany had to overcome decades of resistance. it was courageous of chancellor schroeder and shans lohr merkel to deploy troops to both place. all we're suggesting is that we value that so much that we'd like to see that german leadership. >> i thank you but i'm only reporting. >> thank you. >> and i fail to fill that out. tim donahue, head of the u.s. chamber of commerce. >> nick, good to see you again. very briefly, i hope that this report and perhaps i missed something, can say a little bit more that nato is fundamentally a political alliance with the military arm and not a military appliance with a political arm. as you know i spent much of the last two years of a report on the future of the foreign service, particularly education and training, and that, of course, has a direct bearing on

what the neck does. the two are not well integrated in our own government, the diplomatic and the military. my question to you is, what can be done in chicago, about the potential cuts in the u.s. defense budget, but also the equally draconian cuts in the foreign service and diplomatic budgets which can do us proportionately speaking just as much if not more harm? >> it's never a problem where there is a question where i can preach to the choir and try to hit the softball that bob, my good friend, has offered up here. thank you for that. i would very much agree with you that as we think about sustaining u.s. military power, it's just as important to sustain the health and strength of our foreign service, our diplomatic corps, and our development. the last decade was unusual in american history. we fought two major land wars

simultaneously. we've never done that before in all of our history with the sole exception of the two-front war between 1941 and 1945. and in a way we led with military, with the diplomats in reserve, and, of course, the proper positioning of a country's assets is diplomats on point, military and reserve. not the delow mats and reserve. -- diplomats and the reserve. we need to not cut the budget of the state department. we've had great leadership with secretary clinton and secretary rice arguing with the congress to sustain our diplomatic corps. we all know the facts and figures that there are more lawyers in the pentagon than there are american diplomats. and there are more members of the armed forces marching bands, army, navy, air force and marines, than there are american diplomats. we need to reorder our priorities. i think, final point, to preach to this choir, that the great majority of crises and challenges that we'll face in the next couple of decades will

primarily lend themselves to diplomatsic -- diplomatic resolution and not to military resolution. from climate change to most of the fight against terrorism which is not military. it's political. and it's economic. to all the things we have to do to strengthen our alliances in both parts of the world to coping with china. it's going to be a diplomatic imperative and we're weakening our diplomacy at a time when diplomacy is needed now more than ever. so i very much agree with secretary clinton that we need a stronger budget for the state department. that's the right thing for our country. >> thank you. the visionary and hard-hitting report. one of the problems of being a new yorker is when things about

hedges. pardon me for asking this question. if germany does not rededicate its attention to nato and the u.k. does not follow through with its defense investments, france waivers and turkey's not able to deal with the internal situation, did you folks discuss a plan b? >> we did not because there's no alternative to plan a. the financings of a strong nato. everything you said there is, you know, i wouldn't doubt there is a worst case outcome in all the countries that you mentioned. you might also mention the united states. if we go into sequestration and take $1 trillion out of our military and don't fund the state department, we will not be a second-rate four but we'll be not nearly as influential in the world as we are today and that will be self-defeating. so you can look at the worst case outcome. that argues for the main drought lines in my view of our report. we have to strengthen the alliance, and the leaders of

the alliance need to take responsibility in doing that. that begins with the united states. >> so this is it? >> well, these are the thoughts that damon wilson, jeff lightboot and i have as the principled authors of this book. national security advicors, nato secretary general, that's a pretty -- we're really encouraged by the support that they've given us, this report. >> and there are excellent recommendations. i was wondering if you discussed a plan b, and i guess not. >> plan b is western trans-atlantic weakness in the world and that is not possible. >> thank you. >> not when it's needed so much right now. >> hi. two brief questions. you mentioned that all-star and japan should become -- that australia and japan should become members. what about the membership

possibilities? why would you not foreclose that possibility in the future? the second question is, on the responsibility to protect and the aftermath of the libyan intervention. were there any regrets in poland that they did not participate? it seemed to me just an outside observer, there was not much commitment in countries like poland and as a consequence, they did not participate in the mission. while on the surface you might get consensus. you get different positions in the -- where the outcome will -- >> i'll answer the second question first. with the greatest respect, i hope there are some soul searching in warsaw and berlin over the refusal of poland and germany to participate in libya because libya was a success. but think about how unusual it

was. the arab league said, please intervene in the internal affairs of our breatheren countries. the security council blessed it. there was an imminent bloodbath in benghazi. this was the right thing to do and it succeeded. frankly, we say this in the report, denmark and norway stepped up big time and flew hundreds of air missions. when there are larger european colleagues, countries, germany, poland, i hope there is soul searching, not because it was a victory for nato and successful because alliance solidarity, if the danes and norwegians are going in combat, i think they need the support of everybody in the alliance, not just some of us. secondly, on australia, south korea, japan, the philippines, philand, these are treaty allies of the united states and we are in this enormously

fortunate position. china has no allies in the world. we have an appliance system in asia and an alliance system in europe. it reinforces our alliance. i don't think there is a possibility of agreement in brussels at the nato council that the membership of the alliance should now be global in nature. we are still historically and by definition a political and military alliance based on the democracies of a trans-atlantic world. but the imperative for nato -- this goes back to what fred said in his opening remarks -- is that europe and america need to be globally oriented together and when dan and i work together very closely -- he was my closest friend in the last administration. i think this is how dan thought it too. united states policy towards europe must become global. meaning the u.s.-european relationship had to be about europe but also about the rest

of the world. that is easily done if we become political and military -- not allies but partners of australia and new zealand and japan and south korea. and even if morocco, jordan and the u.a.e., because they all want to be in military missions with us, so can we train together, exercise together so that when we have to deploy for humanitarian operation or a peacekeeping operation or god forbid a war, we're able to work together, pound for found, australia has done more for the united states than any other country in the world. since 2003. so ought not nato to have a defense relationship informal, not by treaty, with australia? i would say the report says, yes, of course we should. i think there's a depirches of view here in europe. some european countries would agree with the united states. we have to be globally oriented. others say, no, we are' only about western europe and north

america. if we're only about western europe and north america, perfect policy for 1952. but not for twelve. if you see where we've been -- but not for 2012. if you see where we've been oriented. by exercises, training, military cooperation and, boy, do we have a lot of countries that want to be part of that, they very much want to be part of the discussions with us and the activities. why would we turn that down? why would we say no to australia and japan and south korea? that's the question we pose in this report. >> what's your -- on libya, what's your response to the following, and this also involves syria. as you know, not everyone in the cabinet room agreed necessarily with the libyan operation, and i think they're arguing it wasn't so much about the military operation, whether it could be successful, but it was the aftermath and the

uncertain aftermath, number one. take that to syria, the objection would be, i thought it was the responsibility to protect but it turned out to be regime change. we didn't know we were in it and therefore we don't have a u.n. security council resolution. so you have -- what is your answer to both the chinese and the russians about syria and how they're acting there and the lessons they seem to have drawn from libya and maybe we'll just focus the question on that? and then in general, what action would you take as nato right now towards syria knowing you don't have a u.n. situation but you also have one of your members, turkey, wanting you to be much more forward-leaning? >> fred, one of the advantages that one has going off to teach is that you can speak your mind. my answer to china and russia's objections would be sour grapes. if you look at the absolutely

cynical and i would say brutal attitude of china and russia, they are not lifting a finger to help them, it's not even a question of military intervention. they veto u.n. security council resolutions meant to get humanitarian relief supplies to the people six weeks ago. and so they're willing to let syrian civilians be, you know, suffer under the artillery shells. nobody is talking about marlte -- military. what they are talking about is relief supplies on a humanitarian basis to one of the most brutal government in the world and china and russia should be ashamed as our secretary of state said, of their behavior in the security council. i have zero sympathy with them. syria is i think the toughest public policy question we face today because all of us want to do something, but it's so

difficult because none of the conditions present in syria that were enabled -- enable the nato intervention in libya. there's no agreement by the -- or invitation by the arab league. there's no agreement in the security council. the terrain is operating against us. it's not desert warfare. it's close-end urban fighting block by block, house by house. we would require i would think something on the -- on the par of the gulf war coalition. several hundred thousand troops to go into syria, take on the syrian army and try to bring down the government of syria. i don't think it's an effort that the u.s. government is willing to make or should make. we've got plenty of other problems to deal with in the world. and so i would say the possibility rests with the leaning supporter of the syrian supporter, russia. they are the armed supplier. they have a naval base there. they ought to do more than they're doing to curve the brutality of the assad

government. i hope the assad government would fall because it deserves to lose power. it will be a blow to iran and iran is our great adversary. i don't see the utility or possibility of a western-style military intervention in terms of libya because it's a completely different and much more difficult situation. >> thank you very much. >> just to return to your comments on partnerships. >> i suspected you might be from an australian newspaper. >> nato is obviously a treaty, in the military sense, of mutual cooperation and mutual support. without sounding childish, what about the military interventions -- >> thank you for the question. it is any obligation or

exception on the part of australia or new zealand or south korea or japan to have any responsibilities to go along with the nato treaty. your country would not be obligated to fight or to train with us. it would be your call on a voluntary basis. we've noticed that every time that nato deploys australia deploys as a great, great friend of the united states. we are calling for a partnership to develop. nontheological if you will where australia trains more energetically with germany and with britain and with france. you already train significantly with the united states. so when you -- let's say there is another humanitarian crisis such as there was in november of 2004, what happened in november 26, 2004, australia, the united states, japan and india deployed together to help the people of ache and sri

lanka and southern india because we had exercised and trained together in the air and sea. we want that type of cooperation. you've been a stall wart ally in afghanistan but you've had to do it on the run not having worked very much with the european allies. so it's these patterns of cooperation and military training, it confers no obligation on the part of these partner countries. i think the best for both worlds in the asian-pacific allies. >> the most frequent complaint we hear on background from australian officials is you are more than happy to use our soldiers and resources in battle but we're not involved in the planning stage. and we have problems and we have issues in our part of the

world but we don't have no forum. i think it would be a call stay tif change in the relationship. >> i would say, fred, briefly, i would agree with fred. you had to deploy to afghanistan and yet you had no say in the nature of that operation. you should be in on the takeoff as a partner country if you are putting troops in harm's way. there are two other countries i should single out when the ambassador of denmark sitting right in front of me is sweden and denmark. they are great partners. we wish to bring them in a greater cooperation with nato because we are so strong in northern europe. and so they need to be at the table too. >> ambassador, your name has been invoked. do you want to raise a question or comment? ambassador of denmark. >> thank you so much for -- i think it is easier to be a dane than a german here.

so thank you for that, nick. can i ask you to expand a little bit on what it is you want germany to do? is it to spend more? is it to have a global ambition to play a role? what is it in concrete terms do you want of germany? to be german forces to be more expeditionary? that's one question. and not having read the whole thing yet, but i haven't heard european union mentioned. i think we should say that germany could lead through the european union and we can sort of displace soft power through the union. could you comment on that as well, please? >> ambassador, two things. first in answer to your question, could germany become more of a political leader within the alliance? i think we've given a couple of examples today.

it's set out of libya operation when in our judgment they should have been beside your country and britain and france and norway. secondly, germany is -- as i said before, probably the most influential western country in the alliance with russia is germany. and if we have a major strategic challenge, and that is to figure out a way to work more effectively with russia, germany can be in the leadership role in that effort. and it would be much welcomed. i'm sure by the united states of america if that happened. that will be the first point. political leadership that we're not seeing. second, military leadership. nato said 30 years ago when jimmy carter was our president that all countries should spend 3% of their gross domestic product on defense. hardly anyone did back then. now we lowered our ambitions over the last couple of decades and said, can we at least spend 2%? i said there is three of the 28, my country far in the lead. so it's fundamentally unfair

for the american people at a time of economic challenge to be spending 4.4% or 4.5% of our gross domestic product on defense when jrm knee, which is in a much healthier economic position, is spending 1.2% to 1.3%. nato fairness and equality is an important ethic in nato and germany, we would suggest, is not living up to its responsibilities. second example, militarily. germany did serve and sent troops to northern afghanistan in 2003. we honor the service of the german soldiers who were there. we know that germany suffered deaths and wounded, and we sympathize with the german families of those sellediers, and yet germany refused to redeploy its troops to where the fighting was more intense. in southern havings and in eastern afghanistan. and so for the past nearly 10 years now, it's been up to the dutch and the canadians and the

danes and the lithuanians and the americans and the bulgarians to fight the taliban at its greatest level of intensity and germany has refused to redeploy its troops. the second largest military in nato. it's weakened our effort considerably. that kind of military pleerp is vital. -- leadership is vital. >> time for one more question. >> hi. i'm part of the polish embassy. let me allow a short comment because poland was invoked here so let me try to respond. i am not sure if i agree with sort of unspoken sentiment here that libya is some sort of metric of a member state common to the alliance. of course, this is -- it was very important operation, but let me say that poland invested

a lot politically and militarily. first in iraq and then in afghanistan and we've been among those countries that took, you know, the fight to the talibans and still doing the job in gaza province. i think it's fair to say that this level of commitment poland showed in afghanistan and also on the level of the military spending, it's 2% of g.d.p. it has not been matched by other alliance. -- allies. and so we politically supported this operation in libya. that is to say there might be some sort of operations in the europe's neighborhood where not all allies will participate. i don't want to get in the discussion about the originalins of the libya

operation. i think it should be sort of taken -- we should take a more broader view on those issues. thank you very much. >> and let me take that question. and since this is a final question. also if you could address that and at the same time address what is libya a model for because it necessarily isn't a model for everybody in the alliance engaging in everything. people talk about it as a model talk about it more as a model as the alie abc providing the infrastructure and the capabilities for something members of the alliance in general support but not all will participate in and you can participate with regional actors and that's a model you can actually move around. so the question that was raised there but also what exactly is libya a model for? >> we are sitting here as a former polish ambassador to the

united states. i am happy to just thank poland for awful your leadership. you went into iraq when few others would. and you were with us in afghanistan. we're very grateful. and poland without any question, of the 10 countries that came into nato since 1997, poland is the center weight of the central european members so we value those of us who believe in nato the role poland must play. with greatest respect, we suggest in this report that it was a missed opportunity in our judgment. you can disagree. for poleant not to be in support of its nato allies politically as well as militarily in libya. and certainly we -- because germany was a member of the security council at the time and failed to even vote for the mission when the arab league requested it i think was probably even a more bitter disappointment for many europeans and certainly for americans. so, fred, i would just say in conclusion to this question, libya's probably not a

temperatureplate for everything we need to do in the -- a template for everything we need to do in the future. where i thought president obama was right was at a time when we were clearly preoccupied with the withdrawal from iraq and this very difficult war in afghanistan and with our own domestic economic brobs, it was good to see europe take a leadership role for the very first time in the history of the nato alliance, the united states did not lead but europe did. i don't think it's a template because i think those situations will be quite rare. and my own view and perhaps this won't be very popular in my own country, we are the leader of the alliance. we have to lead it. so if some of our members, let's say britain and france, this is vital for them, i prefer the united states to be with the alliance fighting with the appliance, leading with the alliance -- alliance, leading with the alliance. i don't see it much of a

template because i can't see where the united states would want to separate itself from europe. we need to lead. we repeat, damon and jeff and i, over and over in this report, nato needs the energetic leadership of the united states. that's probably our most important message. and it's not aimed at the current administration because president obama is a great leader of nato. it's aimed at all of us, at our congressional leaders who need to fully fund our military and our diplomacy as we go ahead. >> thank you, nick. so ambassador nick burns. the -- it's a very valuable paper. it's up at acsu.org. you can read it more closely there. it's also a very rich discussion. thank you very much for that. i think what's most important about the discussion and the paper, irrespective what happened over the weekend, these are discussions that will stay with us. very glad you touched on them.

thank you very much. on behalf of the audience as well. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the u.s. house begins legislative work this afternoon. they come in in about half an hour, 2:00 p.m. eastern, for a period of one-minute speeches. we expect them to gavel back out and return later today to consider 11 suspension bills including one to encourage the creation and integration of blue alert plans to disseminate information when a police officer's injured or killed in the line of duty. also this week, re-authorizing the violence against women act,

and the 2013 defense authorization bill. we'll have live coverage of the house when they come in this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> jake sherman is "politico" congressional reporter. as the week gets under way in the u.s. house, what's ahead on their agenda? >> there's two main things on the agenda. the violence against women's act and the defense re-authorization. the defense re-authorization g.o.p. aides and lawmakers say will be a big bipartisan vote they believe at this juncture. of course anything can go at this moment. they're tightening up language on detainee treatment which should seal up the last ends for them. the big problem they'll have to contend this week is the violence against women's act which is far from a sure deal in the house. house republicans have taken a -- taken the legislative and done fixes to it that the senate is not willing to swallow and they last week met

with women's groups to get their support in a last-minute move to seal it up for mott raids to make sure moderates were onboard. there are three main issues the legislation deals in same-sex relationships, native americans and immigrants. they're trying to close those up. the same-sex relationship hitch still exists so it's unclear how many they'll lose. they are not likely to get any democratic support so they'll have to get it across the finish pipeline which could be problematic. >> on the violence against women re-authorization, will democrats get the chance to offer the senate poifed bill as an alternative? >> republicans believe so and that gives some shelter for both sides that democrats will offer the senate-passed bill which got 68 votes in the senate which hardly anything does including every republican woman so that can be an option for both republicans and democrats although republicans say they'll hold all their

members together on that re--- on the senate-passed version. >> back to the defense re-authorization bill. the defense authorization bill for 2013, that got some 16 hours of debate in committee. are you looking for another lengthy debate in the house this week? and are they likely to finish it this week? >> they say they are going to finish it this week. they believe they are going to finish it this week. the floor has been an unpredictable beast in the last couple of weeks specifically. but also, lengthy debate is expected. >> and then the house next week is set to go on their district work period. for folks outside washington, what is it that congress does when they're not in the nation's capital? >> a lot -- there's a lot of campaigning going on right now. several members are getting into the 60 and 70 numbers in their town halls. we are only a couple months away from elections. there are primaries that are ready to go on in several states. california has a bunch of interesting primaries coming up. so in the los angeles district,

brad sherman versus howard berman. there are those types of campaigning going on. this house republican conference has tried to pride themselves on doing a lot of constituent work and a lot of these folks who came to congress who were never politicians in the first place try to do a lot of constituent work. so that's kind of their main focus. but this week it's going to be a -- with the violence against women's act it will be a very politically charged week. things like that could carry over in the district work period. >> speaker boehner making news with his comments on the debt increase at the peterson institute today. how does a speech like that at the time -- like that set the tone for house floor debate this week? >> this is typical john boehner. it will come up on the floor for weeks to come and will set the tone for the rest of the congress. boehner laid out his view of how taxes should be dealt with if he end of the year when

marginal income rates are supposed to expire and the debt increase. he wants to offset the debt ceiling hike with cuts of a greater amount which is going to be another huge battle here in d.c. and he also wants to lay out an expedited process for tax reform. it's unclear how that's going to play itself out before the election, but this is a big preview of how he sees republicans taking an aggressive stance in the election on two issues that a lot of folks care about and gets a lot of attention inside and outside the beltway. >> jake sherman, he covers capitol hill, covers congress for "politico." you can read his reporting at politico.com. thanks for the update. >> thanks. >> and, again, the house coming in this afternoon, 2:00. we expect them to gavel back out shortly and then return at 4:00 for consideration of legislation. later this week, as you heard, violence against women act and the defense authorization bill.

live coverage of the house when they gavel back in. the justice department started a criminal probe into jpmorgan chase. that's according to a law enforcement source familiar with the situation. they write that the inquiries at the very early stage the person said spoke on condition of anonymity. it's unclear what laws may have been violated. that from "the washington post." also, today in london, ex-news of the world editor rebekah brooks says she's baffled in britain's phone hacking scandal. she and her husband and four others were charged in london over the alleged attempts to conceal evidence of phone hacking. the first prosecution since police reopened inquiries almost 18 months ago into tabloid wrongdoing. we will -- we want to remind you that we covered a number of hearings last week. you can find those at c-span.org. but want to take you back to her -- some of her testimony from last summer before a house

of commons committee. >> there are many questions i'd like to ask you but i won't be able to do it today because you are facing criminal proceedings so i'm going to be narrow in my questioning. why did you sack tom? >> we didn't sack tom. when we made the regrettable decision to close "news of the world" after 168 years, tom has been the "news of the world" lawyer. his status as legal manager who spent most of his time and pretty much 99% of his time on the "news of the world," and the rest of the company and the rest of the fights had individual -- had -- we had appointed new lawyers and there wasn't a job for tom once we closed "news of the world" and he left. >> he's -- someone is still dealing with "news of the

world" legal cases? >> yeah, the civil cases are being dealt with by -- like i said, first one is the standards and management committee that we've set up and you've seen the announcements on that recently and i won't go over it. i know we've talked about it. and we've got some test cases coming up before the judge in january. there are people dealing with it. but tom crone's role was a hands on legal manager of "news of the world." obviously when we closed the paper and there wasn't a job there. >> i must have misunderstood what james murdoch said. he implied that you sacked him but i might -- it's been a busy day. as a journalist and editor of "news of the world" and "the sun," how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> i think only -- on "the sun," not at all. and when i was editor of "the

news of the world," as you know, i came before this committee, just as i became editor of "the sun." in relationship to privacy and operations. and i think back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives. as you know a chart was published of which i can't remember where the "news of the world" was on it. i think it was fourth. i think "the sun" was below "fake or break" magazine. certainly the top five was "the observer," "the guardian," "news of the world." >> can i just interrupt there. i used to work for "the observer." "the observer" was not in the top four. >> maybe top six then. >> "the observer" had four instances. >> but it was on the table. >> just to answer my question,

you worked extensively with private investigators, right? >> the use of private investigators in the late 1990's and 2000 was a practice of fleet street and after operation motor man and privacy, fleet street actually reviewed this practice and in the main the use of private detectives were stopped. don't forget, at the time, as you are aware, it was all about data protection. data protection act and changes to that which were made and that's why we had the committee in 2003. >> just for time, how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the "news of the world" employed private detectives like most papers on fleet street. >> you were aware of payments to private detectives? >> i was aware that "news of the world" used private detectives under my ed forship of "news of the world," yes. >> so you approved payments? >> i didn't.

>> who would approve payments? >> the payment system of a newspaper which has been discussed at length is very simply the ed for's job is to acquire the overall budget for the pay for the senior management. once that budget is acquired it's given to the managing editor to allocate to different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization, but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor unless there is a particularly big item. photographs or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level and then the editor will be brought in. >> so stuart would have discussed some payments to private detectives with you? >> not necessarily, no. i mean, we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments to me but i don't particularly remember any incidents. >> you don't remember whether you would have discussed any

payments at all? >> no, i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives. i was aware the "news of the world" used private detectives as every paper in fleet street did. >> so you don't know if you authorized payments? >> the payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editor's office. >> you can't remember whether stuart discussed it with you? >> i don't know if we discussed an individual payment. >> ok. in your letter to us in 2009, you said that you did not recall meeting glen. you'll appreciate that this is an inadequate answer under the circumstances. we require a specific response to our questions. did you ever have any contact directly or through others with glen? >> none whatsoever. >> would your former diary secretary be able to confirm that? >> michelle. >> former diary executive? >> i have a p.a. secretary

called cheryl. >> would your p.a. -- >> absolutely. >> did she held your diary? >> no, she doesn't. 19 years. she would have -- she may have something from back then. i don't know. >> would it be paper format or electronic format? >> i never met glen. >> would it be paper format or electronic format for your diary? >> paper until recently. >> were you aware of the arrangement newsgroup newspapers once you were ed for of "news of the world" and "the sun"? >> no. >> you didn't know what he did? >> i didn't know that glen was one of the private detectives that was used? >> didn't know he was on the payroll? >> i first heard his name in 2006. >> did you receive any information that originated from glen or his methods?

>> to me? >> you? >> to me personally? >> you as editor, did anyone bring you information as a result of glen's methods? >> i know it is an entirely appropriate question but i can only keep saying the same answer. i didn't know glen. i never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and had heard about but he wasn't one of them. >> now that you know what you know, do you suspect that you might have received information on the basis of stuff gathered by him? >> now i know what i know is that -- i mean, this is one of the difficulties. obviously i know quite an extensive amount now, particularly the last six months of investigating this story. and glen i am aware worked on and off for the "news of the

world" i think in the late 1990's and continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously if he worked for "news of the world" at that time he was involved -- and i think the judge said in 2007, which again we may disagree with that now but the judge said in 2007 when glen was convicted that he had a perfectly legitimate contract with the "news of the world" for research and investigative work. and the judge said that i think quite repeatedly throughout the friel. so that's what i can tell you. >> did you have any contact directly or through others with jonathan lease? >> no. >> do you know about jonathan? >> i do. again, i heard a lot recently with jonathan reese. i worked for the program. as we all did. and he wasn't -- he wasn't a

name familiar with me. i am told that he rejoined the "news of the world" in 2005, 2006, and he worked for the "news of the world" and many other newspapers in the late 1990's. that's my information. >> do you find it peculiar having served a sentence for a serious criminal offense he was then rehired by the paper? >> it does seem extraordinary. >> do you know who hired him? >> no, i don't. >> do you know who signed his contract? >> no, i'm sorry. >> did you not take the time to find out? >> the investigation that we've been conducting in the six months has been particularly around the intersention of voicemails. as you know, we are -- the management and standards committee at "news international" is going to look at jonathan reese and we already do have some information. but as to the conclusion of that investigation, i do not

know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information that as i said that jonathan reese worked for "newspapers in fleet street in the late 1990's and he was rehired by the "news of the world" sometime in 2005. maybe 2006. >> did you know what he was doing at the time? >> in -- >> 2005-2006? >> i'm sorry, no. >> did you not ask? >> well, i was editor of "the sun." i didn't know they rehired him. >> did you know what -- given that you have a hacking scandal breaking around you? >> absolutely. i had the information that panorama have that jonathan reese worked as a private investigator in the panorama prime minister it said he was conducting many, many illegal offenses. that's what i saw like you did. but also he used to work for panorama. he worked for many newspapers presumably before his conviction, as you say, and then he was rehired by news of

the world. >> do you believe he conducted illegal activities on behalf of "news of the world"? >> i don't know in a. >> what is your belief? >> i don't know. >> you don't know what he did? >> i don't know what he did for the "news of the world," i'm sorry. i don't know what he did. >> don't you think people will find it incredible as chief executive of the company you don't sne >> it may be incredible but again it is also the truth. i heard about jonathan reese's rehiring by the "news of the world" by an investigation conducted by panorama. >> did you have any other contact directly with steve whit more? >> yes. >> what did you do with him? >> steve whit more was one of the private detectives, as i said, who formed i think the major part of operation motor man. as mr. fairly said -- >> i want to know what you did with him.

>> i'm sorry? >> i want to know what you did with him? >> my use of private investigators while i was editor of the" news of the world" was purely legitimate and in pursuit in the main, as you know, for the addresses and whereabouts of convicted peter and that is majority use if not exclusive use of private investigators myself. so i suspect that the "news of the world" use used private investigators for other stories. >> are you aware that steve whit more -- whita more looked up -- >> i wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago. >> you are now? >> yes, i am. >> and why did you have a mobile conversion from steve whitamore? >> like i said, it was 11 years ago. i answered this question many times. but just to repeat, a mobile

conversion which is finding an address from a mobile phone, as -- in a is what a mobile conversion is, and can be got through legitimate means. in fact, the story you're referring to, the mobile phone was a business -- business number and the address was widely known. >> so you can remember what the story was then? >> i just said -- >> what was the story you were working on? >> i read it in "the new york times." i think it would be unfair to the person concerned because he's been named by the guardian and "the new york times" but what i'm saying is when i use -- the very few occasions in which i use private detectives was on c.i.a. a's law. >> can you name other private detectives you worked with? >> no. >> you can't remember them? >> no. >> are you aware the paper used other detectives? >> sorry? >> did the paper use other private detectives other than steve whitamore, jonathan reese

and glenn? >> he was the one i was aware of at the time. as i said, the first time i heard about glen when he was arrested in 2006. >> is it your belief that the paper used other private investigators, that you just can't remember today? >> it isn't that i can't remember. it is -- you have the same information as i have which is from the operation. >> thank you. one last question. do you have any regrets? >> of course, i have regrets. i m.v.p., the idea that millie's phone was accessed by someone who was being paid by "news of the world" or authorized by someone at "news of the world" is abhorrent to me as it is anyone in this room. it is an ultimate regret the speed in which we have found out and tried to find out the bottom of this investigation has been too slow. i think james and rupert both accepted that earlier.

and we are endeavoring or they are endeavoring now a company to continue to investigate. but of course there are regrets. >> the culture of hacking, blogging and private detectives within fleet street and to what extent the "news of the world" felt justified in its -- in its -- in those practices because everybody was doing it, if you like. piers morgan, now a celebrity anchor, said open plea in his book which was published before this whole controversy was broke that he had hacked phones. he said he won scoop of the year for a story about johnson and eriksson. he gave a tutorial on how one accesses voicemail by punching

in a set of four codes and clearly from the account that he gives he did it routinely as editor of "the daily mirror" and it was something that happened at the "daily mirror." he was part of -- i went through the operation commission's report and i added them up. for transactions in the mails associated newspaper group there was 1,387 transactions with mr. whitamore used by 98 journalists in that group. is it not the case that blogging, hacking, the use of the -- the use of private investigators for illicit purposes was an absolute culture of fleet street and that the "news of the world"

participated in the illegal activities maybe with a sense of entitlement that mr. morgan was using in his book because everybody else was doing it, was that not the case? >> i think it -- look, we've heard a lot over the last -- operation motorman was incredibly extensive. every single letter of fleet street was called to this committee and as far as i was concerned, the failings of all newspapers and not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across fleet street was held to account then and there were many changes because of operation motorman to the data protection act. and although i asked mr. fairley's -- they wrote a good

editorial on this i think three months ago sort of addressing -- again, readdressing that climate then and how different it is now. >> in the committee in 2003 concluded, there was widespread evidence of despicable practices across the media, including payments to the police. i appreciate the legal sensitivities involved in this question but i will put it to you anyway. in the evidence in 2003 you asked if you paid the police and you said, we have paid the police in the past. if i may suggest to you, the manner in which you said that, you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as does -- as do all tabloid newspapers. i'm not asking you to make specific allegations. in your general knowledge, what payments to the police widespread across fleet street or were they confined to "news international" titles? >> the evidence i gave in 2003 that it was actually i was

going on to explain my comment and as you know mr. bryant was asking me to explain that comment and the actual session ended. in 2003, straight after my comment about payment to police was in fact clarified, i think the -- the chairman at news international the 2007 inquiry clarified it again and i clarified it recently to the home affairs committee at the end of march, i think. now, i think -- i can say that it -- i have never paid a policeman myself. i never sanctioned or knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer. i was refering if you saw at the time of the home affairs select committee recently that you'd have various crime editors from fleet street discussing that in the past payments have been made to police officers. i was -- i was referring to

that wide-held belief, not widespread practice. and in fact in my experience in dealing with the police, the information they give to newspapers comes free of charge. >> yesterday, one said that "the daily mail" has never published a story based on hacking or blogging, this from a group that operation motorman identified paid 1,387 transactions across its titles. do you think it is credible that all those 1,300-plus transactions were licitely obtained or is this wider culture of hacking that your paper was a part? >> i didn't see his evidence. i think that you'll have seen out of all the media groups in this country that news

international has been the one to openly welcome the prime minister's public inquiry into i think what will be all fleet street practices. we haven't got the -- the fact is i'm not here in position to comment on other newspaper groups. like i said at the beginning, things went badly wrong at "news of the world" and we are doing our best now to sort it out. i accept with not the speed that this committee would have wished and mistakes have been made but we are trying to put them right. i think on operation motorman, it's important there was a select inquiry into the select committee inquiry, and it is properly right that the code of conduct of journalists and the ethics of journalism are in constant review because if they're not, it is the -- you know, the freedoms that this press enjoys which i believe in very strongly. if there is not constant review of conduct and ethics then they are at risk. >> ms. brooks charged today in

london in the phone hacking case. want to remind you, you can see that and all of our coverage from london in the phone hacking case in our video library at c-span.org. we are breaking away here. the u.s. house coming in momentarily. they are coming in for one-minute speeches. then we expect them to gavel out and return later today with some 11 suspension bills under consideration. later in the week they'll take up the re-authorization of the violence against women act. and take up the 2013 defense authorization bill. when they gavel out we plan you to bring you coverage of speaker john boehner at the peterson institute. their annual summit is in washington at 2:45. we'll bring it to you live. in the meantime, live coverage of the house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks o god for

giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. help them to meet their responsibilities during these days enlightened by your eternal spirit. we gather after celebrating mother's day. we thank you for the gift of self modeled by our mothers who chose to place each of us before themselves in giving birth to us and nurturing us as we grew. may we all earn the pride of our mothers in the service we provide to the benefit of this nation. finally, we take special notice this day, may 15, of national peace officers memorial day. and the 163 peace officers who died this past year in the line of duty. we ask that you grant them eternal rest for having paid the

ultimate price in protecting us and give their families consolation in mourning their loss. may they be assured that we as a nation hold them in our hearts and understand that we will always be indebted to them. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: will the members in the gallery join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for

one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last wednesday the house armed services committee met to mark up the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013. over the past year the administration has targeted defense spending to shift to other programs which destroys jobs. chairman buck mckeon has successfully developed a bipartisan bill that would limit shifts that a department of defense budget accounts for less than 20% of our discretionary spending and does not contribute to our growing national debt. the legislation provides the support our brave service members, military families, and veterans deserve as they dedicate their lives to defend our freedoms and protect our families from foreign threats. this week the house will vote on the national defense authorization act. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and give military families the resources they deserve as they fight to promote

peace through strength. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from northern marianas rise? so recognized. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i stand today to pay tribute to a great american success story. today marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the united states department of agriculture. president abraham lincoln founded usda as it's commonly called for advancing america's agriculture industry through science and engineering. today our country's system of production is evident 6 how successful we are by being the world leader in food production, conservation innovations, and the development and use of agriculture urel biotechnology that helps biofuels and helping

farmers to export their products. so, mr. speaker, i pay tribute and extend my personal best wishes to usda on its 150th anniversary. i also congratulate secretary vilsack and all the fine men and women who work or have worked in the department and i wish them another 150 years of success. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. womack: mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so recognized. mr. womack: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a milestone achievement at a company headquartered in la trobe, pennsylvania, with failts across the country, including one in the third district of arkansas. the employees at the rogers facility were presented with the three million work hour award by the arkansas department of labor, the arkansas workers' compensation commission, and the arkansas insurance department for as the name of the award suggests, going three million

work hours without a loss time accident. the arkansas facility was established in 1953. the facility is home to 500 employees who manufacture round tool blinks, energy compacts, hard facing rod and powdered metal. three million work hours without a loss time accident is a great accomplishment. it's a testament to what can be done when a group of employees, however large, share a common vision and come together to work toward that goal. today i'm honored to share this accomplishment with the nation. congratulations, you deserve it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: so recognized. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. today is peace officers memorial day. throughout the nation and my state of missouri flags fly at

half-staff in honor of our members of the police forces who reached the end of their watch, including seven in 2011 and two in 2010. these men and women gave their lives for their nation. not on a battlefield with a foreign name but in our neighborhoods, on streets our children walk. they are heroes, some recognized, frequently in danger, always ready to give what abraham lincoln called the last full measure of devotion to protect and serve our friends, our family, our community. the peace officers lost missouri fell and enforcers of law and first responders in times of need. we remember them all with an empty spot on the force and hearts full of thanks for their sacrifice and service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, according to the american enterprise institute, the labor force participation rate has dropped to its lowest level in

30 years. the only reason the unemployment rate fell slightly to 8% is because another 522,000 adults quit looking for work and are no longer counted. of course it's no surprise that the liberal national media attempted to spin the numbers. the lack of new jobs as being a rounding error. "time" magazine described the negative reports as being statistical noise. the liberal media fed this narrative with misleading statements like the economy is gaining steam. or that the economy was on a hiring surge as the associated press claimed. the liberal media shows its bias when it ignores the president's failed promises and failed attempts to create jobs. americans are concerned about the lack of jobs and deserve the facts. when will the national media put their responsibility to the people ahead of protecting the

president? the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for trial testimony. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule 8. signed sincerely, darrell issa, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that the committee on oversight and government reform has been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for documents. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will make the determinations

required by rule 8. signed, sincerely, darrell issa, chairman, committee on oversight and government reform. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on may 14, 2012, at 1:34 p.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 4967. that the senate passed senate 418. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, growing up on that two-wheel wagon rut wheel farm i learned firsthand the critical role that america's

farmers and ranchers play in our economy. mr. johnson: and on the 150th anniversary of the united states department of agriculture, we are reminded that the average farmer in the united states feeds more than 150 people worldwide, creating countless jobs along the way. just think about where your bowl of serial, your toast, and your pancakes came from this morning. the grain was planted, raised, harvested, and sold then bought, produced, marketed, and sold to you for your morning meal. think about all those jobs that originated from one planted seed. as the world's second largest producer and the largest exporter of agricultural products, a robust agriculture industry is critical to america's economic success. today i honor and thank america's farmers and ranchers who feed the world white putting america to work. and i commend the usda on its

anniversary for helping them do so. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until >> we have been covering on

c-span.org. that's coming up this afternoon at 2:45. we'll have it live for you. until then in the conversation from this morning's "washington journal," in the wake of the j.p. morgan $2 billion loss on bank finance and regulation. host: republican representing tennessee's seventh district. thanks so much for coming in. we wanted to talk with you about j.p. morgan chase, the fallout there. and what your thoughts are on the banking industry. we see this headline today, executive retires in the j.p. morgan fallout. a big shareholder meeting today. what do you think went wrong? guest: i'm one of those members that think as we move forward this week we are going to find out what went wrong. when you read some of the analysis from the "wall street journal" and different ones, you realize that first of all it was j.p. morgan losing money and not the federal government. that's one of the things that we have to realize.

and also we seed that we are still dealing with this too big to fail type concept. and you look at this as a $2 billion loss. no more. as we move through the week. i think that every day we learn a little bit more about it. let's see. these went through the clearing houses. let's see what went wrong here. host: president obama was in new york city yesterday and while there he taped an interview with abc's the view that will air today at 11:00. let's see what the president has to say. >> first of all, j.p. morgan is one of the best managed banks there is. jamie diamond, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we have. and they still lost $2 billion and counting. precisely because they were making bets in these derivative markets, we don't know the details yet. it's going to be investigated. but this is why we passed wall street reform. this is the best or one of the

best managed bank. you could have a bank that isn't as strong, isn't as profitable, making those same bets and we might have had to step in. and that's exactly why wall street reform is so important. host: the entire interview will air on abc today at 11:00. what's your response to the white house take on the situation? guest: there again let's -- we are going to learn a little bit more and see what happened with this process. one of the things we have to keep in mind is dodd-frank as it was passed, 2,300 pages, there have already been 400 rule makings, and sometimes you get so many rules and so many regulations going and the regulators and the auditors basically can't see the forest for the trees. and i think this is a lesson, libby, where simplification and common sense may end up bringing some good process to bear

because what you want to do is be able to get to root problems. when you look at what all has happened with dodd-frank and even going back a little bit further than that, sarbanes oxley, what happens when washington has a knee-jerk reaction? they have a tendency to overregulate. they go after certain things they are very definitive in some areas, but then they don't lay out enough of a process for regulators or auditors to say i 24i there -- think there may be a problem over here and not over here. there's do more in-depth work over here. i want to see what we learn as we forward to this. this is a good way for washington to say, ok, let's take a very thoughtful approach to this. we passed this bill, 2,300 pages, and 400 rule makings later there's still this problem. host: "usa today" takes a look at the different sides of this issue it says j.p. morgan's whale of a loss shows the need for new rules.

this is on the op-ed page. it says even after the terrifying 2008 financial meltdown, wall street remains a place where bankers earn huge salaries when their bets pay off and taxpayers get the tab when they don't. it says the $2 billion blunder refoe attention on the so-called volcker rule a. provision in the 2010 banking reform law named after a former fed reserve chairman paul volcker. wall street has spent two years trying to water down provision which bars large banks from engaging in speculative bets. that's not actually in effect yet, but do you think the volcker rule would change things? >> let's see if this action would have violated the volcker rule. i think that's one of those items that this week as we move forward we are going to learn a little bit more about and see if this would have been a violation. host: right to the phones. if you'd like to talk with congresswoman marsha blackburn of tennessee call 202-737-001 if you are a democrat. republicans 202-737-0002.

and independent callers 202-628-0205. ivan a democrat in cape cod, mass marks good morning. caller: good morning. i have been waiting literally years to get congressman blackburn on the "washington journal" and try to hold her accountable for a very big lie that she told on "washington journal." i have watched the tape a few times. it's on record. during the health care debate she said that massachusetts had a $5 billion budget deficit and it was all due to the health care that we have in massachusetts. that was a lie. we didn't have a $5 billion deficit and the small deficit that we had had nothing whatsoever to do to health care. it's because of the recession. the reason i bring this up now is because this woman has no credibility. why should anyone listen to a word she says? she went on c-span with a straight face just like fox news, she kept saying,

massachusetts has this $5 billion deficit and it's all because of health care. that was a lie. now, what do you have to say, mrs. blackburn? why did you lie? caller: let's give the congresswoman a chance to defend herself. guest: my goodness. sountsdz like ivan's had -- sounds like ivan's had his coffee this morning. i think that the record will show that massachusetts was dealing with a $5 billion hole in their budget trying to backfill that budget. one of the things that we do know, libby, is that tennessee, where i'm from, was the test case for hillary clinton health care. this came about in 1994. it was done as an executive order. the governor's office of tennessee and between an 11115 labor with c.m.s. this went on the books in january of 1995. tennessee ended up seeing

tenncare, their health care delivery system quadruple over a five period of time. finally eeleding up 35% of the budget. as we were reviewing tennessee's plan and massachusetts' plan with your health care there, what we did see was that you also had budget restraints, the largest area of growth came through the health care delivery system. and what we do know is government-run health care programs increase cost. they do not deliver better outcomes. and there's no one that can show you a plan, and i have asked h.h.s. secretarycy billous many times -- secretary a billous, show me many times a program that is a government-run program that is going to give you better outcomes, decrease your costs, and increase your access. you know what? there is not one that they can point to that has run well. host: have you had a chance to talk about this with mitt romney, candidate for president?

guest: i have visited with him a few times, looking at what they did in massachusetts. and what we did in tennessee. i think that, you know, he looks at this and says, massachusetts tried something and he knows what would and wouldn't work. as you look at the obamacare bill and as we looked at government-run health care through the obamacare bill and looked at that in our energy and commerce committee and health care subcommittee, libby, one of the things that we saw is whether it's guaranteed issue in new jersey or what they did in massachusetts or tennessee or what california tried, what you know is when you interject government control, the price is going to go up and the access goes down. host: we are talking about bank and regulatory reform as well as other topics with our guest, congresswoman marcia planning burn overtown tfpblet over the weekend you appeared on abc talking with congressman barney

frank. listen to one of his arguments about bank regulation. a heat me give you a specific example. this was done by j.p. morgan's london affiliate. the republicans in the house are trying to put a better bill through which we are trying to stop which incredibly to me say if an american institution's foreign subsidiary engages in transactions it would not be subject to american regulation. they tried to pass it through the commit. they tried to get it through the house under a quicky. we said no. we are very much still in the process of trying to decide whether or not we'll have the rules in place that will -- by the way we are not trying to stop banks from losing money. we are stop them from losing money in way that is would cause damage to the rest of the system. host: that's congressman barney bank on abc's this week back on sunday. you were able to debate with him in that moment. tell us your reaction to that. guest: there again, look at all the regulation that has come out

of this town in the past year. whether it is banking, whether it is other financial services, whether you're looking at health care reform, 80,000 pages last year. 4,000 new rules. and our businesses are living through more uncertainty than ever before. whether it is 2349 banking -- it is in the banging sector or small business manufacturing sector, libby every time i am out in my district and talking with our community banks, which did not cause the problems we saw in 2008, but have been greatly affected by dodd-frank and some of these rules. when i am talking to our small business manufacturers, when i'm talking with hospitals and health care providers, what they all complain about is the uncertainty that all this rule making has caused. the overreach of the federal government into areas where they need not go. and i think it complicates the

situation. it is counterproductive. certainly you can look at the jobs loss you -- loss numbers that we have and the labor force participation rate which is the lowest it has been since 1991. you know that this does not -- this is not something that is strengthening our economy so therefore congress should say, ok, where are -- let's drill a little bit further down. this blanket of regulation is stifling jobs growth. let's get to the heart of the problem. host: tom is up next. independent caller in lexington, tennessee. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. it's a pleasure talking to you, mrs. blackburn. guest: how are things in lexington today? caller: beautiful. i'm just trying to figure out -- i watched bill o'reilly's rant he had last night about being rich and everything that he supports and we are all supposed to live off of his income.

my mother worked 45 years, started out a little cotton picking southern girl. she saved quite a bit of money on her own. back in those days you could save money. united states savings bonds used to be the most secure thing out there to buy and interest on those bonds. why is it only the working class people are the ones that get hurt on our 401-k plans and their savings? it seems these other people that do have money and should have savings they would be losing a bundle. what kind of insider information do you-all have? about this health care deal, my fiance works for one of the largest employees in this country, and they raised their deductibles to $3,000 a year. that's practically a quarter of her income. guest: let me -- a couple of

things there. good tennessee common sense. a lot of things we can touch on there. first of all, i want to go what he was saying about savings bonds. i remember as a girl growing up so many times if it was a 4-h club contest or maybe for a birthday, i got a savings bond. libby, one of the things that is so egregious about this out-of-control spending that is taking place in washington, d.c., right now our children aren't getting savings bonds, if you will. look at what is happening with the debt. my oldest grandchild turned 34 -- 4 on saturday. he has $50,000 worth of u.s. debt piled on his dead. now, what we are doing is capping and trading our children's future. but tom is exactly right. he learned a lesson from his mother, which i learned from my mother. work hard, save your money, you

can go get these savings bonds. these are great ways to save and invest and this is how you can participate in the success of your country. that is a great lesson. it is unfortunate that my children and grandchildren look at the debt because selfish politicians will not cut back on what they are spending here in this town. it is time that spending cuts -- he talked about his fiance's health insurance deductibility being raised. and this is an important issue. i mentioned tenncare and the way you had government control of health care with the -- this managed care project in tennessee with hillary clinton health care. what we saw was an acceleration in the health insurance rates of our private insurance in tennessee. look what has happened since obamacare has passed.

everybody's rates have gone up. out in my district the companies that i talk to, they all are seeing their rates go up. the lowest amount i have had a company's rate go up this year was 23%. when i asked them how much of your insurance rate's gone up? 23% was the lowest i have heard back. yesterday i was meeting with some of our hospitals. they are being paid 50 days out. their reimbursement rates are lower and taking a longer time to get to it. the more you inject government control, the less you are going to see access to health care, the more you're going to see the costs go up. it's exactly the wrong way, it's exactly the wrong path. it is exactly what the american people do not want. host: our guest mentioned her home district, that's the seventh district of tennessee, it includes memphis, clarksville, and franklin. she serves on the whip team and

she's done that since her 2002 election into the house of representatives. she's also on the energy and commerce committee where she serves as vice chair of the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing, and trade, as well as others. neilson, republican in cape carl, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: go ahead. caller: i'm glad you brought up some interesting points. the banking system the way it is now until you bring the steagall act back in place, the dodd-frank act will not work. it's a lot more regulation. some justifiable, others not. but you brought up bonds. i think it is finally time to have this nation first cover bond bank. it would be ideal to take on freddie mac and fannie mae and turn them over into something that is a first covered bond bank that's owned by the people that invest in the bonds. you can offer a bert product

that is fair. remember the old straightline simple interest, mortgages, 30-year fixed. well, mortgage based on that and there are so many solutions but unfortunately you have the average person that's out here that does actually have a -- the financial housing market and create a new segment so we cannot -- protect ourselves from the current banking system. i would love to hear somebody be able to have the opportunity to express these ideas. i do have them in writing. it is -- i currently have what do you call, private access. but i'd love the opportunity. there are solutions from the american people, the average person. so that's my comment that i have today. thank you. guest: thank you, neilson. libby, one thing i would encourage him to do is to

contact his member of congress and you can get to -- my website is blackburn.house.gov. put in the last name.house.gov you can get to your member of congress. i would encourage people to be in touch with him, suggest to any of the viewers you can find me at blackburnhouse.gov, find us on facebook at marsha blackburn and twitter at marsha blackburn. but carry that conversation forward. the best ideas i get are the ideas that come from my constituents as i'm holding listening sessions or at the grocery store or filling up my car at the gas station. people will come up and say, you know, i had this thought. but neilson made an important point and i think that it is worth going back to. he said that, individuals have the silver bullet. the thing that has always kept

this economy going in this country is the faith and action, action of the american people. freedom, free markets, free people are going to work every single time. and when you talk about stimulus and bailout and excessive regulation, it all comes back down to the best economic stimulus is a job. and the american people are ready for jobs. and right now you have this stagnant nonexistent jobs growth and you look at the number of jobs in this sector that have been lost since barack obama became president and you don't see the vibrancy that you need in job creation. and the reason you don't is what we were talking about earlier with the excessive regulation, the amount of uncertainty that has put into the marketplace, when you see the impact of obamacare, the amount of

uncertainty that is around what health insurance is going to cost you. are you going to have to pay this penalty for your employees if you don't have your health insurance? what kind of taxes are going to be levied through the obamacare bill. all of this creates uncertainty. when you've got uncertainty through regulation, through taxation, through litigation you do not get what you need. that is the old formula that works for job creation which is less regulation, rest taxation, less litigation -- less taxation, less litigation equals job creation. it is the individuals that through their faith, through their action are going to change what is happening whether it is in banking regulation or whether it's in the economy as a whole. host: conversations happening on twitter and you can join that by writing@cspan wj. matt and gliss are talking about

the glorge glass-steagall act. one was saying it was only 37 pages long banning bank speculation with deposits. guest: these are some of the things you go in and look at the simplestity of this. what was it there for? you can spell it out. you go back to glass-steagall and then you look at what happened with sarbanes oxley. you look what happened with dodd-frank. 2,300 pages, 400 rule makings, and they still haven't gotten around to giving the definitions that the industry says would provide some certainty. this is part of the problem that is there. the overregulation, the overreach of the federal government. and the lack of common sense. host: do you agree with them and think that the original act was -- guest: the original act is -- it's simpler. the industry understood it. and they knew where the rules were.

host: loretta, democratic caller in hudson, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. host: thank you for calling. caller: this is my second call in about 10 years. i don't think that the regulations are being enforced for openers. there were whistle blowers before the banks collapsed and nobody paid any attention to them, the banks just went on and on with their multiple mortgage deals. and i think that's basically the reason that they collapsed. they were just stretched too far. no common sense there. greed. it was pure unmitigated greed. and another thing i have a question for the representative. you take an oath when you go into office to uphold the

constitution of the united states, and most of the republicans and maybe all, have taken an oath not to raise taxes. which oath do you observe more closely? guest: loretta, thanks for that and i appreciate that you talk about a lack of common sense. and greed. and when you talk about taking the oath, you take the oath to uphold the constitution and that is something that i take very seriously. and something that i have continuing conversations with my constituents about is making certain that you uphold that constitution indeed when we did our pledge to america, when republicans did that pledge, we put in there that in order to run a bill you would have to cite what causes, what links that, what provides the

constitutionality for that bill before you file that bill. that's an important step to take. now, there are pledges that people will take, different types of pledges that come along and i'm one of those that is a no-new taxes pledge. the reason i do that is because i know from my experience as a private citizen, as a state senator in tennessee, leading a four-year fight against imposition of a state income tax, i know that the government never gets enough of the taxpayers' money. sometimes i'll ask people, how much is enough? and what they will say, well, i don't know. i don't know how much. how much is enough. see, that's the problem is they always want a little more and a little more. government has an insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' money. and when you look at the amount of the accelerated spending that

is taking place in washington, d.c., in the past three years, it is unbelievable. our total $15 trillion plus dollars' debt, $5 trillion of that has come on the books in the past three years. personally i thought president bush spent too much money. i would have regular conversation was him about what i thought was too much spending. $100 billion, $200 billion a year in accrued debt as the deficit for that year i thought was too much. now you are talking about that's a month. when you look at what president obama spends, that's their monthly deficit. so the spending has to be brought under control. and it is greed, yes. bureaucrats need to be forced, they need to be forced to get their spending under control. that's why i run amendments every single year that would require that the bureaucracy

reduce 1%, 2%, or 5% out of the spending that they have. when you go in and do those across-the-board reductions and you give those hair cuts, it gets that spending back under control. host: you mentioned taking a pledge and committing to not allowing for taxes. grover norquist has the tax pledge, have you signed his anti-tax pledge? guest: yes. i think i have signed groferse. i think i have signed others. the problem is we are not overtaxed. we are overtaxed and this government is overspent. we are not undertaxed. we are absolutely overtaxed. and washington has a spending problem. and the more you tax, then the more you're going to spend. and every time a tax increases, you have a little bit of loss of your freedom. host: zoe writes in from

nashville, tennessee, over email and says, are you aware that the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 add to the country's deficit every single day? if you're concerned about the debt being put on your grandchildren, why not push to end those tax cuts? guest: well, what i'm pushing is to reduce federal spending because there again those tax cuts, and zoney may want to know this, our sales tax deductibility that we enjoy in tennessee because we do not have a state income tax, it's a fairness issue for those of us in nonincome tax states like florida and texas and washington state, tennessee. this is included in those tax reductions. some of the provisions that are there for our entertainment industry, for our musicians and songwriters, are included in those tax extenders as they are called. so no, i will support continuing with the bush tax cuts. it is the spending -- when you

look at government gone wild, like the issues with the overspending at the g.s.a., when you look at the t.s.a. overspending, these are areas where you can begin to cut back as well as beginning to make some of the reforms that need to be made. host: carlos in chicago, independent caller, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing? mrs. blackburn, good morning to you also. one of the things that i do agree with and this is why i am independent, i'm going to make a comment, do you have pen and paper, that's my first question, i have five questions. host: we don't have that much time. why don't you take your best ones share those with us. caller: the first one which is housing issue. she was talking about dodd-frank. i used to be democrat, but then i don't roll with them because they did agree with the banking industry and i am facing foreclosure myself.

the first question would be, like those of us that while you are talking about the banking industry, going to the heart of the problem, why you guys are discussing that. what can those of us, my americans, my parents have worked hard for this house, and i'm working hard now, i'm a massage therapist, who can we talk to for relief of that? that's the first question, the second one is health care. when you talk about obamacare, but then yet i believe that you are about to back mitt romney which did the same thing in massachusetts. the third thing which is even the debt, do you guys ever -- every year you guys get like a pay raise, i believe. and you guys pass that rule with no problem. what about for the rest of the american people? i'll just leave it with that and take your answer off the air. guest: ok. carlos has a full plate. of items that are here. first of all on the issue with the debt, congress led the way

in cutting our budget. that was the first vote that we took. and i think at this point we have cut our budget by 11%. he is misinformed on the pay raise. i know, libby, there are a lot of things that go around that we have special health care and don't pay social security and all of these different things. i have a health savings account. i have -- he's a little bit misinformed on that. and carlos, one of the things that i would recommend is going to the website and looking at what we have done to push forward, to lead the way and set the example on how other federal agencies should be making spending reductions. and that's a good first solid step. won't solve all the problems, but beginning to make those across-the-board cuts is a good first solid step. just like with our states in tennessee we made

across-the-board cuts in order to bring the budget into control. you are going to see that helps get the bend spending under control. on the health care issue, you know you and i wouldn't agree on everything if we sat down and had a conversation, my husband and my children and i don't agree on everything. but we agree on most things. and i expect that's the way many of us are going to be with governor romney. had i been in his shoes i wouldn't have done the massachusetts health care plan because i know what we learned in tennessee from being the test case for this. and the government control of health care, the public option plans as they are called, it just doesn't work. we had a democrat governor that went in and reshaped the program, took 270,000 people off the program so that it would be affordable. and what we do know is a few things.

we need to focus on this, increasing options and choice for health care and decreasing cost and mandates. the system needs to be simplified. whether it is bureaucrats in the government you are dealing with or insurance companies. i think it's just as frustrating to not be able to understand what you bought with health insurance or having all of these subjective interpretations of what the policies cover. that needs to be cleaned up and clarified. i think that what we also need to do is get the taxes out of health care. obamacare put taxes on medical devices. they have excise taxes. anywhere can you put a fee in and tax. we need to increase what you can do with your health savings accounts. and doing it on a tax-free basis. those are all items that could be done to help make health care more affordable. my goal is to preserve access to affordable health care for all

americans. and that is -- there are some steps that we can take there. with the housing issue, you were wanting someone to talk to, i would suggest there again that you call your member of congress office and sneak with one of the case -- speak with one of the caseworkers there and ask them if they can provide you a little bit of direction and information on where you can go for further information on how to deal with your mortgage holder and process through a foreclosure. host: representative marsha blackburn, represents tennessee's seventh district, which includes memphis, clarksville, and franklin. let's hear from a tennessee caller in franklin. mike, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, thanks. caller: wonderful. it's a pleasure and i just want to say, mrs. blackburn, you are doing a wonderful job out there. good to hear you. everything you say makes so much sense. are you very crystal. you took that one call but that

guy, that journalist, very well, so good for you. i just had a quick question on like the banking financial regulation deal. a while back when they were bailing the banks out, i was kind of familiar with some of the people within the -- that were over -- oversaw these reputable banks, three separate banks, personnel that i knew, and they really -- they were telling me they didn't need the bailout. that they just kept on like, forcing the money at these banks. and i was going, i didn't -- i didn't try -- didn't want to get too nosey with them. they are clients of mine. it was just really with this j.p. morgan, it just kind of funny out there on wall street.

it's like -- they must have had big investors out there losing money that were tied into congress or something. it was very odd. hearing both sides. that was my question. i want to say thank you again. guest: thanks, mike. i appreciate that. libby, he's using one ever those good tennessee terms, anyhoo. the thing is we all know what that means. mike's talking about something that was hopping during the bailouts where some of the banks you would hear from some of the banks, our regional banks, different banks where they didn't -- they didn't have problems but the money was there and there was the pressure o take some of this money. it reminded me of the thing that we often hear as we are doing oversight where, oh, we have an

appropriation and we haven't spent all of our appropriation. we need to hurry up and spend this money by the end of the year. and i think that that's what mike is referring to with some of our financial institutions that felt like there was a push to get this money out and get it into circulation. but here again you go back and you look at what happened. when you have too big to fail, what do you generally end up with? you end up with too big to manage. you end up with increased regulation which is exactly what is happening now. it takes us back to that first call where you don't know what you're going after. you've got rule makings. look at the number of rule makings. last year 80,000 pages of new regulations into the federal register? who can read all that? and it doesn't matter if it is banking regulation or if it's health care regulation or if it's manufacturing regulation

and things that are come interesting the e.p.a. the uncertainty that it creates. the manipulation of the marketplace. it is something that is not serving our country well. i think what the american people are saying is enough is enough. and it is time for us to begin to roll back regulation, roll back some of this taxation, roll back this government overreach and let people get back to doing the business they want to do. host: a tweet asks are there regulations you would support? some our tweeters were talking about the original glass-steagall, if that were up -- >> all of this conversation available in our video library at c-span.org. we'll go next live to the peterson institute. pete peterson on your screen holding their annual fiscal summit. about to hear from house speaker john boehner who is expected to talk about the debt ceiling and federal spending. this is live coverage here on c-span.

>> for nearly 22 years. as the 61 stth speaker -- 61st speaker of the house of representatives, john boehner is at the certainty of every critical policy -- center of every critical policy decision in washington. i look forward to hearing the speaker's thoughts on how the fiscal situation, particularly in december and january, will or should unfold and how the deadlines will influence republican plans to deal with our long-term deficits. i suspect that as one of 12 children speaker boehner knows a fair amount about negotiation and compromise. so i am also interested in his views on how we can work across party lines and reach out to americans of all persuasions to find agreement on the tough decisions that will have to be made.

following his remarks speaker boehner will be interviewed by aaron burnett, host of cnn's nightly news program, "aaron arnett out front" and aaron is also cnn's chief business and economics correspondentant. please welcome speaker john boehner and and burnett. -- and aaron burnett. >> pete, thank you for that introduction. and let me just say to all of you it's an honor to be with you in this historic mellon auditorium. it was here in the spring of 1949 that the united states and our closest allies gathered to sign the north atlantic treaty. giving birth to nato. on that occasion president truman declared that people with

courage and vision can still determine their own destiny, they could choose freedom or slavery. in our time all of these great nations face a grave threat to freedom, one from within. and that is their debt and our debt. it's shackling our economies and smothering the opportunities that have blessed us with so much. and once again the world looks to the united states for what it always has, an example. it's the example of a free people whose hard work and sacrifice make up the sum total of thriving towns and a vibrant economy. it's a humble government that lives within its means and unleashes the potential of first rate ideas and world class products. it's a nation never content with the status quo and always on the move. i got a glimpse of this example growing up, working at my dad's

bar just outside of cincinnati. then lived a peace of this dream myself when i ran my own small business. instead of the shining example of what does the world now see, a president on whose watch the united states lost its gold plated triple-a rating for the first time in our history. a senate controlled by the president's party that hasn't passed a budget in more than three years. and earlier this month another unemployment report showing that the world's greatest economy remains unable to generate enough jobs to spur strong and lasting economic growth. if you showed know one thing about me it's that i'm an optimist. yes, our times are tough but our future doesn't have to be dark. we don't have to accept the new normal where the workplace looks more like a battlefield and families have to endure flat incomes, weak job prospects, and higher prices in their daily lives. we have every reason to believe we can come out of this freer

and more prosperous than ever. and if we will, we can confront our challenges now while we still have the ability to do so. for the solution to what ails our economy, it's not the government. it's the american people. the 235eu8 your of -- failure of stimulus, a word people in washington refuse to say anymore, has sparked a rebellion against overspending, overtaxation, and overregulation. americans who take pride in living on a budget recognize that we can't go on spending money that we don't have and that our economy is stuck in large part because it is stuck with debt. nationwide we are seeing a groundswell of support from bold ideas that reject small politics. cast off big government. and return us to common sense, the kind of ideas -- common sense and first principals. the kind of ideas that will restore prosperity and substantially improve the trajectory of our economy.

in march as part of our plan for america's job creators, the house passed an honest budget with real spending cuts, a pro-growth tax reform, and serious entitlement reform. as far-reaching in its effort to control government's worst habits and capitalize on the american people's best. and this budget gets our fiscal house in order and promotes long-term growth far from settling for stability, it offers a true path to prosperity. various bipartisan commissions and coalitions have devised their own ambitious plans as well. and the math may be different and the mix a little different, but the goals are mainly the same. and of course there's moments like these who bring together people who just happen to get it. of course while i'm happy to be here and i'm sure we all enjoyed being in each other's company, we can also agree we have probably talked this problem to

death. it's about time we roll up our sleeves and get to work. for all the focus on election day, i think there's another date that looms large for every household and every business in america and that's january 1, 2013. on that day without congressional action a sudden massive tax increase will be imposed on every american by an average of about $3,000 per household. rates go up, child tax credit is cut in half, the a.m.t. taxes end, the estate tax returns to 2001 levels and so on. now, it gets a little more complicated than that, what will expire in january 1 is a cause for concern, it's what will take effect beyond that that concerns me greatly. indiscriminate spending cuts of $1.2 trillion, half of which would devastate our men and

women in uniform and send a signal of weakness. several tax increases from the health care law that's making it harder for employers to hire new workers. as well as a slate of new energy and banking rules and regulations that also increase the strain on the private sector. but it gets even more complicated than that. . it is a chance for us to bid fair well, permanently to the -- farewell, permanently, to the timely targeted short-term government interventions. you know, for years washington has force fed our economy with a constant diet of meddling, micromanagement and manipulation. none of it has been a substitute for long-term economic investment, private initiative and freedom. previous congresses have

encountered lesser precipices with lower stakes and made a beilein for the closest lame -- bee line for the closest lame duck. this congress will not follow that path if i have anything to do with it. having run a business, i know that failing to plan is planning to fail. the real pain comes from doing nothing. austerity is what will become necessary if we do nothing now. we'll wake up one day with no choice in the matter. and there's also no salvation to be found in doing anything to just get by, to just get through this year. nothing is not an option and anything is not a plan. to get on the path to prosperity, we got to avoid the fiscal cliff but we need to start today and to show my intentions are sincere, i'll start with the stickiest issue

and that of course is the debt limit. on several occasions in the past, the debt limit has been the catalyst for real budget agreements. last year, however, the president requested a, quote-unquote, clean increase in the debt limit. business as usual. well, i've run a business and that's no way to do it. certainly no way to run a government either. especially one that's run up a debt bigger than the entire economy. so business as usual will no longer do. so last year around this time i accepted an invitation to address the economic level of new york. i went up there and said in my view the debt limit exists in statute precisely so government is forced to address its fiscal issues. yes, allowing america to default on its debt would be irresponsible. but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and

reform the budget process. now, we shouldn't dread the debt limit. as a matter of fact, i think we should welcome it. it's an action forcing event in a town that's become infamous for inaction. you know, that night in new york, i put forth a principle that we should not raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in reforms. now, from all the way up in mid town manhattan i could hear the great whaling and gnashing of teeth. and over the next couple of months i was asked again and again if i would yield on my position, that if i would budge. each and every time i said no because it isn't a position. it's a principle. not just that it's the right thing to do. it is the right thing to do. when the time comes, i will again insist on my simple principle of cuts in reforms greater than the debt limit

increase. now, this is the only avenue i see right now to force the elected leadership of this country to solve our structural fiscal imbalance. now, that means we have to do a series of stopgap measures, so be it, but that's not the ideal. let's start solving the problem and let's start solving it today. we can make the bold reforms and cuts necessary to meet this principle, and i believe that we must, so just so we're all clear, i'm talking about real cuts and real reforms. not tricks and gimmicks that have given washington a pass on grappling with the spending problem. last year in my negotiations with the white house, the president and his team put a number of gimmicks on the table. now, there's a lot of thought and creativity that went into this. things like counting money that was never going to be spent anyway, savings. now, maybe in another time with another speaker, gimmicks like this would be acceptable. but as a matter of simple

arithmetic, they will not work. they won't work, as i told the president, we're not doing those things that way anymore. what also doesn't count are tax increases. tax hikes destroy jobs, especially an increase in the magnitude that's set for the first of the year. small businesses need to plan. we shouldn't wait until new year's eave to give american job creators -- eve to give american job creators the confidence they need to get hit with a big tax increase on new year's day. any sudden tax hike will hurt our economy. we will vote to stop the largest tax increase in american history. so we give congress a time to work on broad based tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and businesses while closing deductions, credits and special things. eyebrows go up all over town whenever i talk about that. when i saw broad based tax

reform, i mean it. we need to do it all. deal with the whole code, personal and corporate, to make it fairer and productive for all americans. that's why our bill to stop this new year's day tax increase will also establish an expedited process by which the congress would enact real tax reform in 2013. this process will look something like how we handle the trade promotion authority where you put in place a time line for both houses to act. the ways and means committee will work out all the committees, but the bottom line is this -- if we do this right, we'll never have to deal with the uncertainty of expiring tax rates again. we'll have replaced the broken status quo with a tax code that maintains and creates a fairer, simpler code. if we do that right we'll see increased revenue for more economic growth. and, again, change doesn't have to be sudden or painful.

you know, last year when i addressed the economic level of washington, i said that making relatively small changes now can lead to huge dividends down the road in terms of debt reduction. as we approach the issue of the debt limit again, we need to continue to bear this in mind. and as you know we could eliminate all the unfunded liabilities, social security, medicare, medicaid tomorrow, and the effect on the congressional budget 10-year window would be minimal. that's because changes to these programs take time and need to be phased in slowly. for example, when congress last increased the retirement age for social security, the increase was a mere two-year increase. but it was scheduled to fully take effect over a 40-year period. another example, take the house budget resolutions and assumptions for medicare reform. those will not even begin until

after 2022. smart and modest changes today means huge difficult dens down the road. now, -- difficult dens down the road. now dividends down the road. now i can hear people say, let's wait until the elections are over. employers small and large are waiting for regulations which freezes them in place. the markets aren't going to wait forever. eventually they are going to start reacting. and we now now that to ignore these warnings we will do -- we now know that to ignore these warnings we will do so in peril. i hope the president will step up and bring his party and the senate leaders along and work with us because if there's one action forcing event that trumps all of the rest, even the debt limit, is presidential leadership. ladies and gentlemen, i believe that president obama cares

about this country. and knows what the right thinking to do is, but knowing what's right and doing what's right are two different things. the difference between knowing what's right and doing what's right is courage and the president, i'm sorry to say, lost his courage last summer. he was willing to talk about the tough choices that we needed to preserve the strength in our entitlement programs, but he wasn't ready to take action. as it turned out, he wouldn't agree to the most basic entitlement reforms unless it was accompanied by a tax increase on small business job creators. we were on the verge of an agreement that would have reduced the deficit by trillions of dollars, by strengthening entitlement programs, reforming the tax code with permanently lower rates for all and laying the foundation for lasting economic growth. when the president saw his former colleagues in the senate getting ready to press for tax hikes, he lost his nerve.

the political temptation became too great. he moved the goal post, changed the stance and demanded tax hikes. now, we ended up enacting a package with cuts and reforms larger than the hike but it could have been so much more and the letdown was considerable and in turn our nation's credit rating was downgraded for the first time. well, it should also be the last time that happens which is why i came here today. if a president that continues to put politics before principle or party before country as he often accuses others of doing, our economy is going to suffer. and we'll miss our last chance to solve this crisis on our own terms. if we have leaders who will lead and if we have leaders with the courage to make the tough choices and the vision to pursue a future paved with growth, then we can heal our economy again and we can be the example for all of the

following. listen, i'm ready and i've been ready. i'm not angling for some higher office. this is the last position of federal government i'll ever have, but i haven't come this far to just walk away. all my life i've operated on a pretty simple principle. if you do the right things for the right reasons, good things will happen. well, now's the time to do the right thing. let's do it for the right reasons. we don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming. frankly, that's not the american way. let's summon the vision to choose freedom, to choose prosperity and to determine our own destiny. we'll not on succeed in solving this crisis but we'll be worthy of that success. i just want to say thanks to all of you for being part of this conference and thank pete for his leadership on this issue and i'll look forward to having a very productive

interview with erin. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i just wanted to start off by -- well, i had an idea for savings money, first of all. air conditioning in this space if they turned it down a little bit, probably a couple thousand bucks. >> i don't know. it feels pretty good to me. >> it's like sitting next to mark cain. we fight every single morning. if you had to say how bad is it? people talk about a fiscal cliff, fiscal arm geton, how bad is the situation for us? >> well, one would only have to look at what's happening in greece today, what's happening in spain, much less portugal, ireland. i can go down a long list, where they've waited too long and as a result the markets are going to dictates what happens

there. and their inability to solve their own problems have all but diminished. as i look toward the end of this year, there's no reason for washington to just kick the can down the radio where we put the next election -- down the road where we put the next election in front of the next generation. we have a serious problem coming at us. but i say this, regardless of what happens in the election, the electorate will take care of that, the next two years could be the most consequential two years we've seen in washington and have seen in the last 50 or 60 years because these problems are not going to go away. and we can't wait our way to prosperity, nor can we grow our way out of the problem. i think there are three big components that we need to embark on if we're serious about solving our problem. one, we need real economic growth. to get real economic growth we've got to reform our tax code, as i said, both personal and corporate. lower the rates. make it fairer for everyone. and we need to get the

regulatory juggernaut in this government off the backs of the private sector. i want clean water, i want clean air but, my god, the regulatory nightmare is scarring everyone in this country. if we have real tax reform, the third component is we've got to do something about our sweng. today we have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. 70,000 a week. that's 3.5 million people this year. and this just the beginning of the baby boom bubble. so this is being to go on for the next 20, 25 years. and that's why it's so important for us to begin to solve this problem. in 1990 when i was a first-time cab date for congress, i said this -- candidate for congress, i said, the sooner we begin to make the changes in our entitlement programs, the better it will be for the long

term. for 20 years, washington hadn't done much. and we've waited almost too long. the sooner we get on this problem, the sooner we solve it, the sooner we'll be finished with it. listen, everybody knows what the menu is. it's just a matter of having the guts to choose things on the menu. it's much like going to dinner. you make a choice of what you want for dinner. >> right. >> well, we know what the problem is and we know what the menu of choices are. it's a matter of both parties getting together and coming to an agreement on what it is on a revenue side, what it is on the cutting side. >> so i saw tim geithner on his way out and i said, what's going on with the debt ceiling. i don't know if speaker boehner is going to do it. he said, nope, you're wrong. he knows in his heart. he knows in his heart it's the right thing to do. he was smiling but he wasn't joking. >> oh, i know. >> that was before i saw your speech. so the debt ceiling going to go up?

>> i think i made it pretty clear right here. allowing the debt ceiling to go up without addressing our fiscal challenge would be the most irresponsible thing that i could do. >> but are you going to run out last time? i know in the speech you said under this president we lost our a.a.a. -- >> it took me eight months to get people interested and actually talk about fixing the problem. so -- >> you're going early now. >> why wait until after the election? because it's inconvenient? might impact the election? let's begin the process and the discussions now. there's no reason to wait until we run up against a ceiling. >> i feel like everyone would agree with that, but laying it out that you have to have -- you have to have the cuts in the reforms that are equal to or greater than the debt increase. chris van hollen said that's a line in the sand. >> it is a line in the sand. it is a line in the sand because washington has kicked the can down the road, kicked

the can down the road, kicked the can down the road and the american people think we're crazy. they're ready for washington to take action. i'm here. i'm ready to do it. let's go. >> so what exactly would you cut? if you let the bush tax cuts go away that's $2.8 trillion right there. >> what would it do to our economy? put tens of millions out of work? remember, there's an appropriate level of taxation that will generate max minimum income to the federal government if we get more americans working. so it's got to be a mix. we got to have real economic growth and we would have to have real controls on spending. if we don't fix the entitlement programs, if we don't fix them they won't be there. you know, it gets lost on people. but we all know social security, medicare, medicaid are going bankrupt. it's not like there's money in the social security trust fund or medicare trust fund. it's all been spent. be honest with the american people about the challenge that we face. but as much as i can do, it

doesn't supplant and it's not going to be enough. you know, the president is reducing his presidency to the size of a post-it note. this is the president of the united states, the leader of the free world who ought to be taking an active role in this conversation. he ought to be taking -- this is the number one challenge facing our country and he's worried about all kinds of little things. >> so the one thing that always frustrates me is it's sort of rhetoric like that, to be honest, he's reducing his presidency the size of post-it notes, you are putting things out there, lines in the sand, and it quickly deinvolves to two sides pointing fingers when people want to get this solved. >> i am the most transparent guy in town. you know, as i like to say, i speak english.

i have got 22-year record of this -- being myself. the president and i have a very good relationship. we understand each other. we get along well. we believe in different role for the federal government. but having said that, the american people expect us to find common ground and to help solve america's problems. my greatest disappointment with a year and a half i have been speaker is the president and i couldn't have find agreement to take a big chunk out of our long-term debt. our economy would be better today if we were able to have done that. our fiscal situation would be better and frankly it would have set an example for the rest of the world. this is important to do. >> so i want to just get to something that i always ask about. you did make it clear i think at the podium. you said reforms or cuts. i get what cuts are. we all debate. reform could mean anything. first thinking i said was -- >> budget reforms is what i was talking about. reforms to all kinds of different programs.

>> it could be medicare, it could be social security. it could also be, theoretically, closing loopholes so some people in this country end up paying more in taxes than they're paying. i just want to make it clear when people talk about this whole tax increase, you may not like the word but in your world some will pay more in taxes postreform, right? >> we will bring the rates down for all americans and clear up the loopholes will some get out scot-free. >> i pay more, you pay more? >> america's rates will come down. >> that's the political point. i have to pay more, right? >> we are going to bring everybody's rates down. when you bring everybody's rates down, you clean out the underbrush, some americans may pay more, some may pay less. >> so one more thing on this debt ceiling because chris van hollen brought it up here. he talked about the paul ryan

budget. according to the c.b.o. that would require a $5.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling over 10 years just as it was. so you'd be ok with that? >> the big house republican budget that would gut everything under the sun according to my friends across the aisle would still require a $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling over the next 10 years. why? because of the great big demographic bubble, baby boomers like me, that are going to retire and continue retiring for the next 20, 25 years. it's a big challenge. >> so it's not every increase in the debt ceiling that you say has to be matched one for one? it's the one that you are trying to force overall reform, willing to borrow for your plan? >> i don't know how long i will be around here. that was the line in the sand last year. this is the line in the sand this year. as long as i'm around here, i believe that line in the sand will be there. and understand the basis for this. what i'm trying to do here is

use the debt ceiling as an action forcing event to force the process to deliver more change than what it would produce on its own. it's as simple as that. >> one final question. and this goes to sort of the frustration so many americans feel about the political process right now. you've been doing this for 22 years. a lot of people talked about you wanting to have a legacy, to make a difference, to go out and have this on john boehner's name. do you think democracy is part of the problem? in democracy people are always going to vote for more things, they are never going to vote to take them away? payroll tax cut, good luck with it going back the way it was. good luck with a lot of things. >> you know, we are in our 223rd year of our experiment in democracy in representative government. and, you know, it's not worked well, you go back to the days

of the greeks or romans. there are some points at which they had problems. they had problems because leaders along the way didn't stand up and lead. listen, america is the greatest country on earth. we represent 2% of the world's population. yet we represent 25% of the world's economy. why? because americans have had the freedom to succeed and we've also had the freedom to fail. they've had the freedom to innovate, the freedom to grow and it's that america that gave me an opportunity to run a small business, to be here, gave you an opportunity, gave everybody in this room an opportunity, and when i was running my business, it looked to me like government choking the goose was laying the golden egg. more rules, more regulations, more taxes, and i got involved in this for one simple reason, to make sure what is available to all of us is available to

our kids and grandkids. i am a pretty simple guy. there's no mack velardey in the distortions -- mackiveli in the distortions. america can be once again the greatest flakes on earth. we can provide opportunities for our kids and grandkids but we need to act. no more talking. time for action is now. >> all right. well, i didn't even realize our clock had ran out. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you, erin. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome pete peterson back. thank you. >> speaker boehner will join other congressional leaders tomorrow in a meeting at the white house. the white house announced this afternoon president obama hosting that. the u.s. house coming back in about 35 minutes or so, 4:00 eastern and they'll take up nearly a dozen bills, chug one that would encourage the

creation of blue alert plans, to get information out when a police officer's injured or killed in the line of duty. look for votes after 6:30. live coverage of the house here on c-span. of course, again, about 4:00 eastern. and president obama today provided remarks at the 31st annual peace officers memorial service. this ceremony was part of the peace officers memorial day and national police week. president kennedy signed the first proclamation in 1962, designating may 15 as peace officers memorial day. it honors law enforcement officials who were killed in the line of duty in the previous year. john boehner, f.b.i. director muller and huard secretary janet napolitano hosted this event at the u.s. capitol. this is 30 minutes.

>> detail, color guard, right shoulder, order. arms. ready, cut. >> please stand for the advancement of the colors by the united states capitol

police and please stand for our national anthem. >> detail, color guard, present arms.

>> the national anthem by kathy williams. >> ♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly well hailed at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets red glare

the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ o say does that star-spanningled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

>> detail, color guard, order, right shoulder, arms. >> please remain standing for the invocation provided by the chaplain of the national from a turn order of police. >> please join me in prayer. our gracious father, we thank you for this clear weather

today. our gracious father, on this sacred day, may 15, we have set aside for a day to remember all those that have been killed in the line of duty. we pray tribute to our law enforcement brothers and sisters that have made that ultimate sacrifice while serving others. we celebrate the day the life of service and commitment to their family, department and agency. this day is also a time to say thank you to the past and present survivors' families for allowing us to share in your pain and hopefully to be able to help you recover seeking god's help and wisdom. from close friends to law enforcement agencies across the country, local, state, federal and national government leaders, we recognize this great loss to you and our country. and today we pause to say thank you to our fallen heroes and to offer their families our love and support and remind them that we will never forget.

may god's love and grace be with you now and forever. amen. >> you can please be seated. it is my honor and privilege as the president of the fraternal order of police to welcome all of you, my fellow officers, our

law enforcement families and distinguished guests to this 31st annual national pearce officers memorial service. i would like to begin this morning by introducing our guests have who joined me on the dais in this celebrated event. please join me by welcoming a longtime member of the f.f.p., terry. thank you, terry. [applause] next to terry is linda gregory, national president of the concerns of police survivors, as well as our good friend, craig floyd, the chairman of the national law enforcement memorial fund. we're very honored to have with us today tim scully, the vice president of government foreign affairs, one of our most generous corporate sponsors for this event. thank you, tim. it's always a pleasure to introduce and welcome one of the f.o.p.'s most stall wart

champions on capitol hill, senator patrick leahy, chairman of the senate judiciary. chairman, we thank you again this year. we are very pleased a good friend of everyone in law enforcement and especially everyone in the f.o.p., the minority whip of the united states house of representatives, steny hoyer. thank you, mr. hoyer. we are also very honored to have with us again at this service speaker of the house of representatives, mr. john boehner. mr. speaker, thank you for coming again. also joining us is the state president of the north dakota fraternal order of police, grant benjamin. he's here today representing the national border directors in honor of a lost bored of director member from the fraternal order of police, steve kenner, who passed away in the line of duty in 2011. steve was the fourth national board member of the f.o.p. to die in the line of duty and

grant is here today representing those four, but more especially his friend, steve kenner. thank you. next i welcome linda henley, our partners in this memorial service. she will be welcoming you all in a few minutes. turning to my far left, please welcome paul irving, the sergeant of arms at the house of representatives. this is his first service as the house sergeant at arms and we're very grateful for his presence. next is the acting chief of our host agency, the united states capitol hill -- capitol police. thank you, chief. next of chief reynolds is the acting director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, tobacco, mr. jones. thank you. we are also very pleased to have with us today, stacy hilton, director of the united

states marshal service. thank you. again, joining us for i don't know how many years, director mark sullivan of the united states secret service. thank you, director. we're also very grateful to have with us a dear friend of law enforcement, the f.b.i. director, robert muller. thank you, director. his leadership and support for local and state law enforcement are well-known and deeply appreciated. we're also very pleased to welcome the deputy attorney general, jim cole, who is also with us this year. thank you. also very pleased to welcome last year's key note speaker who is joining us again, the department of homeland security secretary, janet napolitano. and finally, it's with great honor and privilege to have with us today, the president of the united states, barack obama , who i will introduce more

fully in a few minutes. mr. president. on behalf of the 333,000 members of the f.o.p., i want to welcome you all to the national peace officers memorial service. we come here today to honor members of the law enforcement family who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. president teddy roosevelt said, life brings sorrow and joyce alike. it is what a man does with them, not what they coto him, that is a true test of their medal. the fact that you are all here today to honor your loved one demonstrates the medal that all the law enforcement families in our great country have, and i cannot think of many professions in this country where a medal is tested any more than in the area of public safety. america's first responders are always there in times of need,

and it is truly unfortunate that so many lose their lives every year to protect this great country. billy graham said, courage is contagious. when a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened. the courage we are here today to honor has indeed helped to strengthen the resolve that all public safety professionals feel when they go to work. there is nothing in law enforcement that is more devastating than the loss of a brother or sister officer in the line of duty. over 18,000 law enforcement professionals have died in service to our nation, and in all of those the courage and medal of our brothers and sisters has been tried, but the thin blue line becomes stronger because of the courage and sacrifice that your loved ones demonstrated. the show of support that we provide to you, the families, of our fallen heroes is our way of showing you that the loss of

our brothers and sisters will keep us strong, will keep us vigilant and keep our courage and commitment ever present in this great land. we know that our gesture here today will not take away your pain nor relieve you of the families of their passing, but we want you to know that we will remain courageous and we will never fore get the sacrifice that they have -- forget the sacrifice that they have each made. president john adams said, grief drives man to serious reflection, sharpens the understanding and softens the heart. adams was a wise man, and i concur that our grief here today and in the future will sharpen our understanding about the sacrifices that the heroes have made. god bless you, our honored families. god bless the entire law enforcement community. may god keep our troops safe overseas, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you.

[applause] it is now my honor and privilege to introduce the f.o.p. associate -- auxiliary president, linda henne, for remarks. linda. >> mr. president, members of congress, brothers and sisters of law enforcement, families and friends of our fallen heroes, welcome to the 31st annual national peace officers memorial service. in 1962, president john f. kennedy proclaimed that may 15 of each year be observed as peace officers memorial day. in 1982, a yearly observance was established to recognize and honor the men and women who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice. today we honor 166 officers who hug their kids, kiss their

wives, kiss -- or their parents, called their parents, waved to their neighbor and dawned the uniform and shield one last time. they did not anticipate that this would be the last time they walked through that door. they didn't anticipate also that it would be the last time they walked into the squad room, prepare their cruiser or laughed over a joke with their partner. they and their families expected them to return from their shift, to continue with life as it had been been, normal, everyday living. however, this was not the case for the officers we honor here today. on the evening of march 18, 2011, officer andrew s. dund of sandusky, ohio, police department, tucked their sons, caleb age 2 and connor age 5 into bed. he kissed his wife, julie, good night and headed off to work.

he put in a call to his father, fellow sandusky police officer, matt dund, to see how his shift had gone. in the early morning hours of march 19 he observed a man riding a bicycle with no lights. he attempted to talk to the man but the suspect evaded officer and kept riding. he turned on his overheadlights, pulled the suspect over and as he exited his cruiser he saw that the suspect had his hand in his pocket. officer dunn asked him to show his hands and the suspect opened fire, hitting him with five rounds. though he was put critically wounded, he returned fire, striking the suspect as he ran away. in his last moments of consciousness, officer dunn radioed signal 11, officer in trouble. backup officers arrived and officer dunn was transported to the hospital where he died of his injuries. life for the family and friends

of officer dunn as well as all the families gathered here today was changed the day their officer was killed. if you had not experienced the unity of the brotherhood and sisterhood before, the events that occur for the next few days and weeks following the loss of your officer will certainly provide you with reassurance that you will not walk alone. there is a kinship, a connection, a bond like no other between those that wear the badge. you need only look around today to be reassured that your loved one will be forever written on the heart and soul of the law enforcement community. these officers did not live for honors or pay. their happiness was in doing their job, protecting and serving the public. president calvin coolidge once stated -- no person was ever honored for what he received. honor had been reward for what

he gave. these 166 brave men and women gave their all. they laid down their life to protect and serve families, friends, co-workers and the public who are here today to honor them. may they rest in peace. may god bless the families they leave behind and may god bless america. thank you. [applause] i now have the honor and privilege to introduce our key note speaker for this our 31st annual national peace officers memorial service. barack obama, the president of the united states, will address us today. this is the second time that president obama has been able to join us, to honor the families of our fallen heroes. mr. president, it's a great

privilege to have you with us. the men and women whose memory we cherish today put themselves in harm's way to say, to pretect the citizens of their -- protect the citizens of their communities and this great country of ours. we thank them for their sacrifice and we share the grief of their families and we will never forget them or you for speaking here today. while the rank and file officers are doing everything they can to keep our streets safe, many of us worry that no one is worried about providing us the tools to do our job. but, mr. president, we know that you and your administration have worked hard to provide these tools. your continued support for programs to provide vital funding for state and local law enforcement be it with the cops program grants or programs that prevent layoffs or hire other returning military veterans, your support -- and for your support of the public safety officer benefit program, you and your administration have been valued partners in the

cause of public safety. we are proud to welcome you here today. brothers and sisters, our survivor families and distinguished guests, please join me in welcoming the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. please, please have a seat. thank you, chuck, for that very kind introduction. chuck is a proud police officer . he's the proud parent of a police officer. and he's dedicated his life to law enforcement and their families, so i want to thank him for his extraordinary service. i want to recognize the entire fraternal order of police and its leadership, including jim pascoe, for all your work on behalf of those who wear the badge. i'd like to recognize f.o.p.

auxiliary president, lindy henne. all the members of the f. orment p. auxiliary, -- f.o.p. auxiliary. including senators and members of our my administration and most of all i want to acknowledge and thank the families of those who have fallen. scripture tells us, blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of god. blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of god. our country's law enforcement officers use force when they have to. they are well armed and they are well trained, but they never forget that theirs is a mission of peace of their job is to keep the peace, to allow

all of us to enjoy peace in our neighborhoods and for our families. and today with heavy hearts we honor those who gave their lives in the service of that mission. their families are in our thoughts and prayers. as we remember the quiet courage of the men and women we have lost. these are officers like detective john falcone of poughkeepsie, new york. in february, declaration falcon -- detective falcone responded to a shot fired call on main street and when he arrived on the scene he saw a man with a gun in one hand and holding a small child in the other. every situation like that pushes us toward

self-preservation but when the suspect fled, still holding the child, detective falcone didn't think twice. he took off in pursuit. and tragically in the struggle that followed he was shot and killed. he is survived by his parents. but there is another survivor as well. a 3-year-old child who might not be alive today had it not been for the sacrifice of a hero who gave his life for another. this willingness to risk everything for a complete stranger is extraordinary and yet among our nation's law enforcement officers it is also commonplace. last summer, the north platte river was running high near douglas, wyoming, when a teenage girl got caught in the current, deputy brian goss of the converse county sheriff's

office jumped in after her. the girl was eventually pulled from the water, but deputy goss was swept away and he's survived by his wife, amy. today we remember a man who swore to protect his neighbors and who kept that promise no matter what the cost. i suspect at that moment deputy goss wasn't trying to be a hero. he was just doing his job. you can find that bravery, the courage to do your duty day in and day out in so many officers across our country. one of those officers was deputy sheriff suzanne hopper from clark county, ohio. deputy hopper was known as the go-to person in her department. no task was too large or too small. and on new year's day, 2011,

deputy hopper arrived at a crime scene and began a preliminary investigation just as she had done many times during her 12 years of service. but as she was photographing evidence, a man opened the door of his trailer and firedality her with his shotgun killing her -- fired at her with her shotgun killing her. today we remember not just a fine officer but a wife, a mother and a step mother. like all those we honor today, deputy hopper is also survived by the fellow officers who she meant so much to. and who meant so much to her. last week her childhood friend, sergeant chris schultz, posted her flag in ohio. he made a promise in her memory. he said, to honor her, we will keep going and continue to do what we've done no matter how

hard it is at times. we will keep going. there's no pledge that better honors the memory of those we have lost and there are no memories, there are no words that better capture the unbreakable spirit of those who wear the badge. because even in the face of tragedy, i know that so many of you will return home and continue to do what you've always done. some of you will kiss your husbands or wives goodbye each morning and send them out the door not knowing what might happen that day. some of you are children and parents, sisters and brothers whose pride is mixed with worry . of course there are the officers themselves. every american who wears the badge knows the burdens that come with it, the long hours and the stress, the knowledge

that just about every moment could be a matter of life or death. you carry these burdens so the rest of us don't have to. and this shared sense of purpose brings you together and it bricks you to our nation's capital -- and it brings you to our nation's capital today. you come from different states and different backgrounds and different walks of life, but i know you come here as a community, one family, united by a quiet strength and a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of others. the rest of us can never fully understand what you go through, but please know that we hold you in our hearts. not just today but always. we are forever in your debt, and it is on behalf of all of us, the entire american people, that i offer my thoughts, my prayers and my thanks.

may god shine a light upon the fallen and comfort the mourning , may he protect the peacemakers who protect us every day, and may he bless now and forever the united states of america. [applause]

>> president obama will meet with congressional leaders tomorrow at the white house. coming up in just a few minutes the house will gavel in for debate on up to nearly a dozen suspension bills this afternoon including one encouraging the creation and integration of blue alert plans, to disseminate information when a police officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. live house coverage when they gavel in in the upcoming minutes here on c-span. >> jake sherman is "politico's" congressional reporter. as the weeks gets under way in the u.s. house, what's on their agenda? >> there are two main things on their agenda, the violence

against women act and the defense re-authorization. the defense re-authorization g.o.p. aides and lawmakers say will be a big bipartisan vote, they believe, at this juncture. of course, anything could go wrong at any moment. they are tightening up some language on detainee treatment which should kind of seal up the last ends for them. but the big problem, the big thing they'll have to contend with this week is the violence against women act, which is far from a sure deal in the house. house republicans have taken the legislation and done fixes to it that the senate, you know, is not willing to swallow. and they last week met with women's groups to get their support in the last-minute move to kind of seal it up for moderates to make sure moderates were onboard. there are three kind of main issues the way the legislation deals with same-sex relationships, native americans and immigrants. and they're trying to close those up. the same-sex relationship hitch still exists so it's unclear how many they'll lose.

it's likely they won't get any democratic support so they have to get it across the finish line on their own which could be problematic. >> on the violence against women re-authorization, will democrats get the chance to offer the senate-passed bill as an alternative? >> republicans believe so and that gives some shelter for both sides that democrats will offer the senate-passed bill which got 68 votes in the senate which hardly anything does these things, including every republican woman. so that could be an option for both republicans and democrats, although republicans say they'll hold all their members together on that re--- on the senate-passed version. >> back to the defense re-authorization bill. the defense authorization bill for 2013, that got some 16 hours of debate in committee. are you looking for another lengthy debate in the house this week, and are they likely to finish it this week? >> they say they're going to finish it this week. they believe they are going to finish it this week. the floor has been an

unpredictable beast in the last couple weeks, specifically, but, yes, lengthy debate is expected. >> and then the house next week is said to go on their district work period. for folks outside washington, what is it that congress does when they're not in the nation's capital? >> a lot -- there's a lot of campaigning going on right now. several members are getting into the 60 and 70 numbers on their town halls, but, you know, we are only a couple months away from elections. there are primaries that are about to go on in several states across the country. california has a bunch of interesting primaries coming up, so in the los angeles district, brad sherman versus howard berman. so there's a lot of races going on, a lot of raising money, but this house republican conference has tried to pride themselves on doing a lot of constituent work and a lot of these folks who came to congress who were never politicians in the first place do a lot of constituent work or try to do a lot of constituent work so that's kind of their main focus, but this week it's going to be -- with the violence against women act, it's going to be a very

politically charged week. things like that could carry on over the district workweek. >> speaker boehner making news for his comments on the work increase at the peterson institute. how does that set the tone for floor debate for the week? >> this is trademark john boehner. this is sure to come up. it might not come on the floor this week but it's going to come on the floor in weeks to come and set the tone for the rest of the 112th congress. boehner laid out kind of his view for how taxes should be dealt with at the end of the deal when the marginal income rates are set to expire and the debt ceiling which the nation is expected to once again hit and congress will once again have to deal with. he wants to offset the debt ceiling hike once again with cuts of a greater amount which is going to be another huge battle here in d.c. and he also wants to lay out an expedited process for tax reform. it's unclear how that's going to play itself out before the election, but this is a big

preview of kind of how he sees republicans taking an aggressive stance in the election on two issues that a lot of folks care about and hopefully gets a lot of attention inside and outside the beltway. >> jake sherman, he covers capitol hill, covers congress for "politico." he can read his reporting at politico.com. thanks for the update. >> thanks. >> coming up later today on our website, booktv.org, brian doherty, looks at the political career of ron paul. 12-term republican representative from texas and of course republican presidential candidate, three-time candidate. the author reports on representative paul's political ideologicals that ranges across party lines and he will be speaking this afternoon about his book, "a history of the modern libry tarian movement" and we will have that live for you at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and tomorrow on "washington journal," reporter pete spotts for the christian science

monitor this week about the government's role on researching and predicting tosheds. you can read the article at cs monitor.com/environment and join us for our spotlight on magazine segment. we will take your comments and questions about twisters, part of our spotlight on magazines tomorrow on "washington journal." well, the u.s. house will be gaveling in momentarily and they will take up this afternoon some 11 suspension bills including one that will encourage the creation of a blue alert plan. this would get out information when a police officer is killed or injured in the line of duty. look for debate this afternoon and votes at 6:30. after 6:30 eastern in the u.s. house and then later this week in the house they will take up the -- reauthorizing the violence against women act and also the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill. debate on that expected tomorrow. the senate, meanwhile, is wrapping up work on

re-authorizing the u.s. export-import bank. there are a number of votes under way. you can follow that on our companion network, c-span2. and news from the white house today, president obama will be hosting a bipartisan congressional gettogether at the white house tomorrow to talk about economic proposals. republicans will be represented at the evening by speaker boehner and senator mitch mcconnell. and also house minority leader nancy pelosi and senate majority leader harry reid. that's tomorrow at the white house. ahead of that meeting, the president will be visiting a small business in the washington area to talk about his proposals for giving an income tax credit for businesses. we will keep you posted on that meeting expected to happen tomorrow at the white house. john boehner, speaker of the house, did speak earlier today at length about the economy, about the budget and about possible, again, in the fall raising the debt ceiling. he was speaking at the peterson institute. we covered that earlier and you can find that in our video

library at c-span.org. we hope to show you that later on in our program. up next, the u.s. house gaveling in momentarily here on c-span.

>> waiting for the house to gavel back in this afternoon. they'll take up nearly a dozen suspension bills including one dealing with a police alert system, a blue alert system for the injury or death of a police

officer or law enforcement official. debates -- debate between now and 6:30 and votes in the house after 6:30 eastern. a number of congressional hearings happening today. we cover several on the c-span networks and you will see those later in our program schedule. the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. h.r. 1864, the mobile work force state income tax simplification act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 1864, a state -- an act to

simplify the taxing of workers in other states. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. coble: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on 46r789 r. 1864 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. coble: i recognize myself for sum time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coble: on the way back to washington, d.c. this weekend, i looked around my local airport and saw dozens of business travelers preparing to board airplanes to leave north carolina and conduct business in other states.

this happens every day in every state in america. the american work force somewhere mobile in the 21st severage -- is more mobile in the 21st century than it has ever been. nonetheless, the income tax laws places significant burden on those who travel for work and their employers, many of which are small businesses. currently, 41 states tax the workers for nonresidents for work performed there. i do not take issue with the right of those states to impose an income tax but i am concerned that the disparity of tax rules among those states is damaging small businesses and stifling economic growth. for example, some states require nonresidents to pay income tax if he or she works in that state for just one day. other states do not collect taxes until the nonresident

works for a certain number of days in the particular jurisdiction. small businesses must expend considerable resources just to figure out how much they must withhold for their traveling employees in 41 different jurisdictions. employees are also confused about when their tax liability is triggered and in which states they must file a tax return. to alleviate this problem, on may 12, i introduced h.r. 1864, the mobile work force state income tax simplification act work the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the bill was -- we introduced establishes a clear 30-day threshold for tax liability and employee withholding. under the bill, states remain free to set any income tax rate they choose. tax simplification on both the

federal and state level will allow workers and employers to predict their tax liabilities with accuracy and expend fewer resources researching the nuances of each state's respective tax law. the money they would have spent hiring accountants and tax lawyers can then be spent on creating many meaningful jobs and growing the economy. i urge all members to cast a yes vote on this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in strong support of h.r. 1864, the mobile work force state income tax simplification act. this is an important bipartisan bill that will help all workers across the country. it will also help businesses large -- large and small. i've been working on this bill

since i was a freshman in the 110th congress, at which time chris cannon from utah, a former member, was the lead sponsor. in the 111th congress, i was the lead sponsor on h r. 1864 as it is known now. this term, the 112th, mr. coble, who i have been quite pleased to work with, has been the lead sponsor and i'm again -- he's a good friend of mine and appreciate the opportunity to work with him. h.r. 1864 provides for the -- provides for uniform and easily administered law that would ensure the correct amount of taxes withheld and paid to the states without -- without the undue burden the current system places on employees and employers. from a national perspective, the mobile work force bill will

vastly simplify the patchwork of existing inconsistent and confusing state rules. it would also reduce administrative costs to states and lessen compliance burdens on american workers. take my home state of georgia, for instance. if an atlanta-based employee of a st. louis company travels to haurks on a business trip -- to headquarters on a business trip once per year that employee is required to file a missouri tax return, even if her annual visit only lasts for one day. however, that employee travels to maine, she would not be required to file a maine tax return unless her trip lasts for 10 tais. if -- for 10 days. if she travels to arizona on business, she would only have to file an arizona income tax return if she was in the state for more than 60 days. in each days, her mother is

also liable for with-- her employer is also liable for withholding those taxes out of her paycheck and the only way she can avoid double taxation is if she files for a credit for each state's tax in jerez dent state. -- in her resident state. h.r. 1864 would fix this problem by establishing a uniform threshold before state income tax laws would apply to traveling employees. this bill would protect employees who perform employment duties in a nonresident state if they work in the state for less than 30 days. until that threshold is reached, they will continue to pay in their state of residency. when i initially started working on this bill, the withholding threshold was 60 days. in response to the concerns by the federation of tax

administrators, i sought a compromise and lowered the threshold to 30 years -- excuse me, 30 days. i understand that the f.t.a. may still have some concerns about the bill but i believe that it is -- it's a good bill that addresses the bulk of their concerns. the f.t.a.'s concerns have certainly not been ignored. in addition to lowering the day threshold, we worked to clarify that the bill's operating rules would not be drafted to avoid paying withholding tax and clarified that if an employer has a time and attendance system designed to allocate wages among states, it must be used. at a time when more and more americans find themselves traveling for their job, this bill is a common sense solution that helps workers who are employed in multiple states by simplifying the tax reporting

requirements for them and for their employers. thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the balance of of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose -- the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. coble: madam speaker, we are prepared to close and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i have no further witnesses and so i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. madam speaker, for the vast majority of states, this bill carries a minimal or no revenue impact. in fact, this bill would greatly increase compliance rates. this bill will greatly end up saving states the administrative costs of processing and remitting thousands of small returns from

nonresidents. while nothing is perfect and the federation of tax administrators may still have some concerns, this bill is truly the product of years of working with the states on an approach that balances their concerns with administrative ease and eefficiency for employers and employees -- efficiency for employers and employees. this is truly a bipartisan effort that seeks to simplify state tax compliance, not reduce state taxes. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. coble: madam speaker, i also yield back and urge my colleagues to cast a yes vote on this matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1864 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4119, the border tunnel prevention act of 2012, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 4119, a bill to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the southwest border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 419 -- 419, currently under consideration. -- h.r. 4119, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this prohibits the construction, use of unauthorized tunnels across the u.s. border. i thank the sponsors of this legislation, mr. reyes of texas and mr. quayle of arizona, for

their work on this bipartisan, bicam rell bill. similar legislation passed -- bycameral bill. similar legislation passed the senate earlier. this bill identifies the construction, financing or use of cross-border tunnel as a predicate offense for a charge of money laundering and for authorization of oil or communication. and it has the property that enters the -- and it prohibits the property that enters the united states through cross-border tunnels. drug traffickers have ramped up their use of underground smuggling in light of increased border security, either real or perceived. mexican drug trafficking organizations have used tunnels since at least 1990.

a number of cross-border tunnels continue to be found in california and arizona. these tunnels range in sophistication from a simple 16-inch pipe to well engineered tunnels equipped with electricity, ventilation and rails. ownership of the tunnels is often attributed to the mexican drug cartels. to find cross-border tunnels, u.s. agents use devices that range from ground-penetrating radar to seismic sensors. despite these efforts, drug smugglers continue to build the tunnels. in november of 2011, federal law enforcement agents shut down two sophisticated tunnels that led from an area near tijuana's airport to an industrial park in the u.s. about 49 tons of marijuana was seized. drug traffickers also skilled at setting up front companies to rent space and busy warehouse districts in the united states. mining engineers and architects are employed to build the

tunnels. the drug enforcement administration describes marijuana as, quote, the top revenue generator for mexican drug trafficking organizations, a crash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year after year, end quote. the profits from marijuana trafficking finance the drug cartels other drug enterprises which include the construction and use of cross-border tunnels. border tunnels are an unfortunate testament to the ingenuity and determination of the mexican drug cartels. it's time for congress to enhance law enforcement's ability to fight transnational organized crime and the drug cartel's construction of cross-border tunnels. this reaffirms our determination to bring an end to the cross-border tunnels. when congress enacted the border tunnel statute in 2007 it admitted that changes

contained in this bill. h.r. 4119 simply corrects this to ensure that investigators are equipped with the ability to locate and shut down these tunnels and hold these dangerous criminals accountable. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi madam speaker, i rise in support of -- mr. pierluisi: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4119, the border tunnel prevention act of 2012. this would prevent the construction of border tunnels. increasingly, cross-border tunnels are being used to smuggle people, drug and contraband in the united states. they can even be used to smuggle terrorists or weapons of mass destruction into the country. cross-border tunnels present a serious problem for law enforcement, and i support this bill's efforts to stop the growing use of these tunnels. this legislation is urgently needed because the number of

tunnels have substantially increased in recent years. whereas the first documented tunnel was discovered in 1990, the department of homeland security reported last year that 154 attempted tunnels have been found since 1990, all but one of which was located along the southwest border. in addition, the sophistication of some of these tunnels is also increasingly -- increasing in recent years. cross-border tunnels range from small tunnels barely wide enough for a person to crawl through to professionally engineered tunnels built by the mexican drug cartels. in november of 2010, an immigration and customs enforcement task force discovered a tunnel with two separate entrances in warehouses in california. one of the tunnels was for theified with wood and cinderblock supports and a tunnel equipped with rail, electrical and ventilation

systems. the tunnel was being used to import large amounts of marijuana into the u.s. current law already criminalizes the construction of a cross-border tunnel. allowing such a tunnel to be constructed on your property or the use of such a tunnel. h.r. 4119 would strengthen existing law by making it a crime to attempt to engage in any of these activities as well as to participate in any conspiracy involving any of these activities. the bill also makes the construction or use of a tunnel a predicate offense for authorization of wiretaps, provides for criminal asset forfeiture of merchandise involved in tunneling and includes a money laundering provision. cross-border tunnels is involved with criminal activity. i ask my colleagues to support this measure which will help enhance the safety of our nation's borders.

madam speaker, i would like to yield to -- actually, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time and we are prepared to close. mr. pierluisi: madam speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas as much time as he may consume to address the merits of this bill which he co-sponsored. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise today to ask my colleagues for their support of h.r. 4119, the border tunnel prevention act of 2012. i also would like to express my appreciation and thank my co-sponsors, cockman quayle, who i understand -- congressman quayle, who i understand is on his way here and will anticipate that he'll be speaking on this, congressman

chairman dreier and congressman thompson and i would in particular like to thank my good friend and colleague from texas, chairman smith, for his support in bringing this legislation to the floor. i also would like to thank senator feinstein and senator kyl for their work on a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation on the senate side which is senate 1236, the companion to the border tunnel prevention act of 2012. the border tunnel prevention act of 2012 strengthens the 2006 border tunnel prevention act which made it a crime to construct or to finance an unauthorized tunnel or subterrainian passage across an international border. this border seeks to provide law enforcement officials with enhanced investigative tools and additional options for prosecuting crimes related to the construction and the financing of cross-border

tunnels. the border tunnel prevention act of 2012 would criminalize the attempt or conspiracy to use, construct or finance a cross-border tunnel and also permits the forfeiture of both cash and merchandise both smuggled in the united states for these illicit passageways. thanks to the collaborative efforts of the obama administration, the congress, federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement organizations, as well as ordinary americans, the southwest border is more secure than at any point in our nation's history. over the past several years, the federal government has dedicated unprecedented levels of personnel, technology and resources towards border security. as a result, apprehensions today are down and seizures of guns, drugs and cash are up. border cities are among the safest in the country, including el paso, which for the second year in a row, is

the safest city in america with a population over half a million people. while the strengthening of security along the southwest border has produced impressive results, it has also led those who want to harm our country to seek new ways to undermine our efforts. enhancing the security of our borders on land, air and sea has literally pushed drug cartels and trans-national criminal organizations underground as they try to smuggle illicit drugs and people and other types of contrabands, as my good friend and colleague from puerto rico mentioned, to include the potential for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction being smuggled in the united states. over the last decade, drug cartels and trans-national criminal organizations have been increasing both the use and complexity of cross-border tunnels. as was said earlier, approximately 154 tunnels have been discovered between mexico

and the united states since the 1990's, and more than 90% of those tunnels have been detected in this past decade. these cross-border tunnels are becoming more and more complex. one such tunnel, and i've got a picture to show and i know the chairman was mentioning the complexity of the construction, this tunnel is the one that was discovered in november of 2011. it was over 600 yards long and you can see it's got a rail system built in. it's got sophisticated lighting and even a system of -- to introduce fresh air into the tunnel. no longer are these crude, handmade tunnels. these are sophisticated, well enge neered, well financed projects.

so -- engineered, well financed projects. that's why it is imperative that this legislation be passed. we must give law enforcement officials the tools they need to combat this growing threat to our national security and stop the flow of illicit drugs and other contraband into the united states. accordingly, i am proud to be the author of this along with congressman cuelho and i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation so we can further continue the path toward really securing our borders and protecting our communities. with that, let me end by thanking again chairman smith and my good friend and colleague from puerto rico and i urge my colleagues to support this critical and vital piece

of legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has the right to close. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i'm prepared to close. we have no further speakers, so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 4119, the border tunnel prevention act of 2012. i yield back. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: we were hoping the other author, ethe other

co-sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle would be here, unfortunately, his flight was delayed from arizona to washington, d.c. in his absence, i just want to thank him for his work on this bill and for all of his efforts to reduce the amount of cross-border drug smuggling and thereby protect the lives of individuals in arizona and all americans. he has done great work on this particular piece of legislation. we all appreciate those efforts. i yield back the balance manufacture i-- of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4119 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays?

mr. smith: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this society by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 36245erk national blue alert act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 365, a bill to encourage, enhance and integrate blue alert plans throughout the united states in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi,

each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 365 as amended. -- as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. smith: in 1962, at the request of congress, president kennedy proclaimed today as national peace officer memorial day. every may 15, we honor the nation's law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. earlier today on the west front of the capitol, we honored those who were kill while protecting us and enforcing the law. the national blue alert act

allows for a system of distribution of sensitive information to identify a suspect when a law enforcement officer is injured or killed in the line of duty. each year, hundreds of law enforcement officers are seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. america's law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day. they often work long and irregular hours in demanding and dangerous conditions. they run a high risk of being injured or killed by the same criminals that prey on americans. just last month in my home state of texas, an austin police officer was shot and killed while responding to a call about a drunk man shoplifting at the local wal-mart. what seemed to be a routine call turned out to be a dangerous and deadly situation. we cannot bring officer pedron back but we can honor his sacrifice by helping to apprehend and bring to justice criminals who harm our men and women in blue. in 1789, president george

washington appointedmark's first law enforcement officers. 13 united states marshals. since then, over 21,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty. despite the fact that national crime rates continue to drop, in 2007, 163 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, a 14% increase over the previous year. criminals are becoming more violent and their contempt for the rule of law is more evident than ever. this law encourages the establishment of a blue alert network throughout the united states, much like the amber alert network used to locate missing and abducted children. it broadcasts information and speeds apprehension of violent criminals when a law

enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. it uses the same principles as a amber alerts for missing children and silver alerts for missing seniors. a blue alert provides a description of an offender still at large and may include a description of the the offender's vehicle and license plate information. like amber alerts, blue alerts will help hinder the offender's ability to escape and facilitate their capture. the bill directs the department of justice to designate an existing officer as the blue alert national coordinator to oencourage those states who have not done so to develop blue alert plans. 14 states have blue alert plans in place and ohio will implement its network in june. an i want grate, nationwide blue alert system ensures that when tragedy strikes, the

public is on notice and suspects can be apprehended and brought to justice. a nationwide blue alert network will be particularly effective when a suspect flees across state lines. i want to thank the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, and mr. reichert of washington, for their work on this issue. this is a bipartisan, bicameral bill. some of the legislation was approved by the senate judiciary committee last september. supporters of the legislation include the national fraternal order of police, the national sheriff's association, the federal law enforcement officers association and the sergeants benevolent organization. too often, criminals in our society have no respect for if authority and the rule of law. the goal of the blue alert is to allow the entire community to aid in the apprehension of violent criminals who injure or kill police officers. this will help ensure the future safety of our law enforcement men and women and the communities they serve and

protect every day. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i rise in strong support of h.r. 365 and i yield myself as much time as i may consume to explain the bill and to respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for it. the national blue alert act of 2012 has strong bipartisan backing and was approved unanimously by the judiciary committee on april 25. i'm proud to join my colleague, mr. grimm, as the lead democratic sponsor of this legislation and i want to thank the gentleman from new york, former f.b.i. agent, for his leadership on this and other law enforcement issues. this bill constitutes an effort to protect and defend the men and women of law enforcement who protect and defend our families and communities. the bill has been endorsed, has

been stated by the gentleman from texas, by the federal law enforcement officers association, the fraternal order of police, the national association of police organizations, the national sheriff's association and the sergeants benevolent association. in our sister chamber, an itent call companion bill to h.r. 365 has been approved by the senate judiciary committee and currently awaits floor consideration. the legislation before us directs the attorney general to establish a national blue alert communications network within the department of justice to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is coirled seriously injured in the line of duty and the suspect has not yet been apprehended. a blue alert would provide a physical description of a suspect and may include a description of the suspect's vehicle and license plate information. the blue alert system is a cooperative effort among

federal, state and local authorities, law enforcement agencies and the general public. the blue alert system would use the same infrastructure as amber alerts, which are disseminated for missing children and silver alerts, which are disseminated for missing seniors. pursuant to the bill, the attorney general will assign an existing d.o.j. officer to serve as the national coordinator for the blue alert communications network. the national coordinator's duties will include encouraging state, territory and local governments to develop blue alert plans, establishing voluntary guidelines for these government entities to use in developing such plans, developing protocols for efforts to have -- to apprehend suspects and establishing an advisory group to assist state and local government and law enforcement agencies, create, facilitate and promote blue alert plans. in the last 220 years, nearly 21,000 law enforcement officers

have been killed in the line of duty in the united states. and many more have been seriously injured. in puerto rico, the jurisdiction i represent, over 325 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty since 1900 with over 40 officers killed between the year 2000 and the year 2010. this year, two veteran police of puerto rico officers have been fatally shot in the line of duty. although at least one suspect has been apprehended, other suspects in both of these killings remain at large. this morning, these two officers, along with over 160 of their brothers and sisters-in-law enforcement who lost their lives in the line of duty in the past year were honored in font of the capitol as part of the national peace

officers memorial service. the overriding purpose of this legislation is to help deter violent acts against police officers and in the event such violent act occurs, to ensure the perpetrator is quickly ap remended and brought to justice. police officers are like -- unlike young children right hand seniors are not a vulnerable group in the traditional sense. they are strong, capable, and brave but every day they put themselves in harm's way to protect us. they have our backs and it's important that we have theirs. i encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, madam chair. thank you for giving me this opportunity.

this is truly a very special opportunity for me to speak on this bill, h.r. 365, the national blue alert act of 2011. as a former f.b.i. special agent, it makes ate very special honor to have the house consider this important legislation, especially during national police week. think about it, thousands of law enforcement officers from around the world and this country are going to converge on our nation's capitol to honor those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the citizens back at home. on a personal note, i'd like to extend my sinceriest gratitude to new york city's police commissioner, ray kelly, and to the very brave men and women of the nypd for their service to our great city, and i encourage all of my colleagues to treat

every week as if it were national police week because truly it's their sacrifices that are made by these individuals that have inspired me to introduce this important legislation. during my career in the f.b.i., i witnessed firsthand the danger posed by criminals who attack law enforcement officers and the particular threat that they pose on our communities. time and time again, we have seen that if criminals are willing to attack police officers to avoid apprehension, then there is no limit to the lengths they will go or the victims they will target simply to avoid justice. according to the national law enforcement officers memorial fund, 173 officers have been killed in the line of duty in 2011. as members of congress representing new york city and puerto rico, it is a sad fact

for myself and for my friend and colleague, congressman pierluisi, who is the lead co-sponsor of this bill, that the new york city police department and the puerto rico police department both lost four officers, the most of any other agency in 2011. now, it is impossible to completely transform the hazardous nature of the work our law enforcement officers carry out every single day, but there are steps that we can take to enhance their safety and quickly apprehend those who put them at risk. the national blue alert act does this by creating a national blue alert communications network within the united states department of justice to disseminate information on suspects who are being sought in connection with the death or injury of a law enforcement officer. similar to the nationwide amber alert, system for missing children, the blue alert would

rapidly notify law enforcement agencies, including the media and the public, to help aid in the apprehension of these extremely violent criminals. additionally, this legislation would further encourage the expansion of the blue alert program beyond the handful of states where it is currently existing by helping develop the blue alert plans, the regional coordination and the development and implementation of new technologies to improve blue alert communications. this legislation, as we have heard, is supported across the board by many law enforcement organizations, and i am certain that the national blue alert act will enhance the safety of our communities as well as the law enforcement officers who protect them and i encourage its swift passage in the full house of representatives, and i'd like to thank my lead co-sponsor and friend, mr. pierluisi. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues -- will reserve. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi: madam speaker, i

yield to the gentleman from american samoa as much time as he may consume to address the merits of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from american samoa is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. faleomavaega: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: madam speaker, i would be remiss if i did not certainly extend my commendation to the gentleman from new york and my good friend and colleague from puerto rico for their leadership and their services in bringing this legislation before the floor, and want to -- especially for chairman smith and ranking member, mr. conyers, for their support in bringing this bill for consideration. madam speaker, i fully support the fundamental purpose of this bill which is to create and integrate blue alert plans throughout the 50 states and u.s. territories in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured in the line of duty.

this program is similar to the public notification system to broadcast information about missing persons, especially seniors with alzheimer's and disease, or the apple bert alert, a public notification system about a missing child. similarly, the intent of this legislation is to expeditiously apprehend the offenders who hurt or kill law enforcement officers. law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve the public. each year hundreds of law enforcement officers are killed or seriously injured in the line of duty. an average one law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 53 hours. last year 173 officers have been killed. up to 13% from 153 killed in the line of duty two years ago. the blue alert system is a cooperative effort among local, state and federal authorities,

law enforcement agencies and the general public. it provides a description of an offender who is still at large and may include a description of the offender's vehicle and license plate information. madam speaker, i am concerned to learn just this morning that the initial provision for a grant program to be made available to states and territories in support of the blue alert system is no aware to be found in the language of the bill. instead, the current bill language will only provide that the attorney general shall assign an existing officer of the department of justice to act as the national coordinator of the blue alert communications network. madam speaker, while establishing the blue -- while knowing that the whether you alert system is not manned -- while knowing that the blue alert system is not mandatory, in order for the blue alert system to work efficiently and efficiently, otherwise the initial purpose of this bill

will not be met under the current bill text before us today. however, i fully support the needs of the blue alert system. i urge that a grant program be made available to assure that law enforcement officers in the 50 states and territories are provided equal and fair treatment. and i want to thank chairman and ranking member conyers for their support of this bill and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, we are prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from -- is the gentleman from puerto rico prepared to close? mr. pierluisi: we have another speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. pierluisi: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas as much time as he may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. reyes: i want to rise in support of this legislation and thank the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from puerto rico for introducing this piece of legislation. as a former border patrol agent and chief in the united states border patrol, i have the experience working both as an agent with all the other law enforcement agencies and then as a chief and i can tell you that there isn't a worse feeling than that phone call in the middle of the night that one of your agents or one of your officers has been injured or killed and that's why this legislation is so important. not just to officers and agents across the country but to their families. and i would urge strongly that our colleagues support this very important piece of

legislation and agree with my colleague from american samoa that more than just the legislation we ought to do everything that we can to provide the funding to actually bring this critical program to fruition. so with that, again, i wanted to thank my colleagues and also chairman smith for bringing this legislation to the floor and i ask all our colleagues to strongly support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i have no further speakers so i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico yields back. the gentleman from smith. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 365, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. pierluisi: i ask the yeas and nays, please. madam chair, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3534, the security in bonding act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 322, h.r. 3534, a bill to amend title 31, united states code, to revise requirements related to assets pledged by a surety, and for

other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3534, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: and, madam speaker, i'll yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. hanna: thank you, madam speaker. i introduced h.r. 3534 with my colleague, mr. mulvaney from south carolina, to address an issue in the construction industry i know all too well. surety bonding. bonding is something that

people don't think about but was a daily reality in my business. the concept is simple. contractors on a federal construction project are required to post assets prior to entering a contract. to prove that they are capable of paying their subcontractors and downstream paying their suppliers for work. it indicates that a contractor is capable of successfully completing a project and is supposed to protect taxpayers and small businesses downstream in the event of failure or nonpayment. the business of bonding is predicted on a zero failure rating. the assets pledged to back a project must be real, easily convertable to cash and held by the contracting officer for the duration of the project. and most are. unfortunately, a loophole in these laws has been exploited. it has resulted in a number of cases where assets pledged to

back a bond issued by an individual surety have been insufficient or a losery. this has left small businesses and taxpayers without sufficient payment remedies and in the case of one colorado woman, nearly put her out of business. a single private residence, which is subject to huge changes in value or may have an existing firt mortgage is not acceptable asset to back multimillion dollar projects. this will require individual suresuritie, s as eligible obligations. further, it would require them to be placed in custody of the federal government just as they would using a corporate sure tee or -- surety. this is putting workers and the

taxpayers at risk. it is time to close this loophole and restore the integrity of the bonding process. h.r. 3534 would ensure that if individual surety bond is issued for a project that small businesses and subcontractors providing goods and services on that contract will not need to worry about the integrity of their payment remedy. this bill provides the surety that a small business needs, subcontractors and citizens deserve from the federal government. without it good jobs and our limited taxpayer dollars will continue to be at risk. in closing, i would like to extend a personal thanks to chairman lamar smith for his leadership in advancing this legislation and for allowing me to join him during the committee's proceedings. madam speaker, i urge my