not my opinion, regulatory system is a kenard used by republicans to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. nornede, it's a case of political opportumism. that's his opinion. not mine. my concern is if you ask economists on whether or not legislation -- many pieces of legislation that we baffed called jobs bills -- the gentleman has pointed that out -- economists say in the short term which is really what we need to do, we need to do in the short term and the long term is not going to create jobs. . this week we haven't done anything to create jobs. might i ask the gentleman, i didn't see it next week, do we expect the 32nd or 33rd vote on repealing the affordable care

act either next week or week after or week after that? as the gentleman knows, c.b.s. opines we spent some 80 hours on that issue with whatever cost is attendant to that, do we -- you can answer both questions, i suppose, but certainly i would be interested and members would be interested to know whether or not we are going to have another vote on repealing the affordable care act. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman about this week's vote, in fact today, today we voted on a bill that will help us mine it in america. the gentleman likes to speak about making it in america. why shouldn't we also be mining it in america? so it's very much a bill to facilitate that business and industry in this country, in an environmentally sensitive way. and in fact 22 of the gentleman's caucus members joined us in that vote. mine it in america, madam

speaker. as to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this countryle is something that i really -- i don't believe the gentleman agrees totally with that statement. i know he and i both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. we don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families. so again, i would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework doesn't have anything to do with job creation. of course it does. it has to do with the environment for, one torques take a risk, for investors to put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out, sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. of course regulation has

something to do with job creation and growth. that is exactly our point. and i hope the gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduel -- unduly burdensome frakework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so we can see america grow. i'd say to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of obamacare. if the gentleman would like to do so, i'm happy to meet with him right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that this week. and i would say to the gentleman the reason why, perhaps we spend so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of americans. it's their health care. it's their families' health care. and at the end of the day this election season will underscore

the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election. and the real question is, madam speaker, are we going to have washington-based health care or patient-based health care? that's what it comes down to. who is in the driver's seat? patient and their doctors or washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can have. and we all know what's happened with that approach under obamacare. costs have gone up, employers will be getting a plan. people will not be able to have the health care they have. that's why we spent the time we have on this bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows full well i think you have wasted a lot of time on this house floor. wasted a lot of effort on this house floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage you were simply appealing to the base you are just appealing to.

this the gentleman believes what you would do if your bills passed you would take away benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. i think that's incontestable. it's incontestable that seniors who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for the prescription drugs which enhance their quality and length of life would lose it if we repealed the affordable care act. it is incontrovertible, i will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job, unfortunately in this economy, we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the president on this floor to even consider, pass or fail. millions of young people would lose their insurance. millions of children who have a pre-existing condition who now under the affordable care act cannot be precluded by the insurance companies was really who you want -- not you

personally, but who the defeat of the affordable care act would put insurance companies back in charge. not government bureaucrats but insurance companies. so many of your republican governors don't want to set up the exchanges. all the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment do they like policy a, b, or c. it's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they are getting a good bargain for the price they are paying for their health insurance which is very expensive. i will tell the gentleman that the affordable care act will also create, c.b.o. says, economists say, millions of jobs in the health care area. so contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people to access to affordable quality health care. as mr. romney said, we require

responsibilities so everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that if they can they want to insure themselves, so what? so the rest of us don't have to pay when they get sick. if they need help, as mr. romney said in massachusetts when romney care was adopted, a model just like we have adopted for the nation, it's important to make sure that they get some help. that's what that bill does. in addition to that, we have made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies, not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies say, you're too sick. we are not going to cover you anymore. i will tell my friend, he and i have a radically different view on what the consequences of the -- this 31 votes that we have had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the senate, knew the president wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. you are making a political

point. i understand that. there are people who disagree with the affordable care act. i understand that as well. i frankly think had we dealt with jobs legislation during that 0 hours and considered the president's jobs bill, we would have millions of people employed today in america right now. now, let me just -- so there is no misunderstanding so i don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion. he's right. he and i agree. we need to cut government red tape. we need to speed approvals. we need to make sure that we do not impede by regulation the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. i couldn't agree with him more. and i think we ought to deal with that in a bipartisan basis and hopefully we will continue or perhaps start to do that, i might say, or continue to do that in some instances. the gentleman is correct. let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, you also mentioned bringing taxes

down. let me ask you something. do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i'd say to -- madam speaker, to the gentleman, can he repeat the question? mr. hoyer: yes, do you expect the vote on taxes which you have referred to to occur the last week on which i believe is the 29th of july, the week of 29 july, to be on that week? mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman, madam speaker, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on a bill to extend the existing rates and we'll also be bringing up a bill. that extension will be for a year. we'll also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles for tax reform that i know the gentleman also has said we need to reform our tax code so that we can help make it fairer, more simple, and so we can see the economy grow again. those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, madam

speaker. mr. hoyer: i look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman's correct. i think we do need to reform our tax system. we need to make it simpler. would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down as the bowles-simpson, gang of six, whoever you want to refer to as suggested. that's moving in the proper direction. i also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this nation. i think as bowles-simpson pointed out, you got to do that in a balanced way. let me ask you something on the packages that you said are coming that last week. there have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as i understand, the ways and means committee. does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? and does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the ways

and means committee? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman, i think -- i disagree with the gentleman's hearings. i think the last year and a half chairman camp and his committee have been about looking at the tax code, talking about tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. we have been all about the economy and growth. i say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills, we have been doing jobs bills. he complains about the 30-some bills we have been doing relating to obamacare. i would say we have done even more than that relating to jobs. i would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. they are on the doorstep of the senate and the leader over there refuses to bring them up. and so again i say to the gentleman we stand ready to work

together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here. and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. that's what we are doing. we have had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. if you want to stop the tax hike for all americans at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. if you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the tax code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. it's that simple. i yield back. mr. hoyer: when you say -- i presume as the gentleman said we are talking about two different bills, are we not? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, that is

correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that clarification. let me say to the gentleman when the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, i think that's probably accurate. what there has not been in my view and in mr. levin, who is the ranking member of the committee's view, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill which apparently is going to be brought to the floor which simply extends all the bush era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt, and indeed ramifications to the economy. i would say with all due respect my friend the majority leader, i don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. there have been issues should we reform the tax code. the gentleman, i agree, we should simplify, we should reform the tax bill. we should make it more compatible with economic growth and very frankly for average individual americans to -- who want to pay their taxes like to pay as little as possible, all

of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well. so i don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says is going to bring to the floor. that's what i asked. let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it, are there going to be -- is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? to clarify, so that members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that members will have an opportunity to reflect on that bill. mr. cantor: i would say -- madam speaker, i would say to the gentleman this is a very simple and clear choice here. given this economy, if one wants to raise taxes on all americans, you vote against the bill.

if you want to go and help folks through a more simple tax code and you want to look towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. straight up or down. there have been enough discussion, enough hearings in this -- in the ways and means committee as well as the budget committee. these issues were central to our budget. you are a member on a budget committee as well as ours, had a full, open hearing on that budget document and markup, we believe now is not the time to raise taxes on working people, small businesses, and large. the economy is anemic. we don't have enough job growth. why do we want to take more people's hard earned money? that's why we are bringing this bill forward. this bill is straight up or down. stop the tax hike or not. i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i take it the answer is no that there won't be a markup on a bill that will have

consequences to all americans and extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. is that -- am i correct in interpreting your answer is, no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill, you bring it straight to the floor without committee consideration, is that an accurate interpretation? mr. cantor: madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i think the gentleman has heard my response. mr. hoyer: well, i heard your response and i accurately characterized it. i think that's a shame, mr. majority leader. mr. boehner said we were going to be an open house, that we were going to consider matters and that everybody would have their opportunity to have their input. usually tax bills are brought to the floor not subject to amendment. you have just said, as i understand what you said, this bill, our way or the highway. you couldn't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor,

you're out of luck. you won't have an option. you can't put any of your ideas in the bill. if that's the way you intend to consider this bill, mr. leader, i think that's unfortunate. and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the aisle will have an opportunity to deposit their position on taxes through the regular process of a motion to recommit. and as i have said publicly yesterday when asked, are the democrats in the house going to be able to offer the president tax proposals? i said, absolutely they will. so we'll see. we'll see, madam speaker, if the gentleman decides to put forward the president's tax proposal, calling for a tax hike on american small businesses. we'll see if that happens, madam speaker. but we'll see and that will be the week it will happen. you're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not. i yield back. mr. hoyer: my way or the highway, that's what you said, mr. leader. very frankly in my view we have

agreement. we have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor and it is that all middle-class working americans will not get a tax hike. all of them. and everybody up to $250,000 of income will have no tax increase. but we have a big deficit and a big debt. and we need to pay our bills. we have a debt limit vote coming up at the end of this year. very frankly we took the country to the brink of default, and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence. you talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, mr. leader. i agreed with you. i think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence, but i will tell my friend, if you wanted to work together as you've said on a number of occasions now, as much as we did with the export-import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. they were passed on a partisan vote for the most part. not all of them.

and some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. and guess what happened? they became law. the president signed them. export-import bank, the jobs bank that you were -- not the jobs bank -- the jobs bill that you promoted and which i voted for, you said you want to work together. now, it's interesting when you say work together because what you say you're going to give is a motion to recommit, and what you will instruct is for all of your members to vote no. it is a purely procedural vote. and as you have for the last 18 months, your members will vote no on motions to recommit. notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance. and the fact of the matter is, mr. leader, we can have a vote that passed with 435 votes. 435 votes. everybody in this congress says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working americans, on working americans making

less than $250,000 in taxable income. as you know that's more income. but we won't get that vote except on an m.t.r. vote no. it's a procedural vote only. it's not a substantive vote. i say not only to my friend, will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so we can vote on that. yes, we have about disagreement, but you're prepared to hold hostage working americans by saying, if the richest people in america might have a little bit of a tax increase, then the everybody else is going to get a tax increase. you said it a different way. i understand it. but the -- but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which i think there's overwhelming support of and making sure that working americans and, yes, small -- 97% of small

businesses don't get any tax increase at all. we have agreement on that, mr. leader. why don't we bring that to the floor and show the american public that, yes, we can come together as you have suggested, yes, we can agree and yes, we can make sure they don't get a tax increase. and, yes, we can have a debate on the balance and you will take one position. i may take another position and the american public will see that and they can make a judgment on -- with whom they agree. now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public would agree with me and you will think the overwhelming majority of the american public will agree with you. that's what democracy is about. let us have this debate. let us have this vote. let us make sure that working americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country. i yield if the gentleman wants to respond. mr. cantor: madam speaker, what i say to the gentleman is holding hostage working families is denying them a job. it's about jobs. and, you know, the gentleman

can play with the statistics all he wants and claimed that 97% of the small businesses will get a tax break this way and let's leave the others for later. but the significant fact is it's the others -- it's the others is where the significant job growth can be. why would we want to go and tax job creators. we know that 50% of the people that will get a tax hike under the president's proposal get at least a quarter of their income from small business. and the more their income the more the percentage. that means the jobs. so why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people because washington takes more of their money? why would we want tax rates to go up on anybody in this anemic economy? and why would we want to go and raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending in washington because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper? that's our position, madam

speaker. and so i would ask the gentleman straight up, is the gentleman going to bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the president's proposal? is that going to be the motion to recommit? will the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their motion to recommit? i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if the gentleman is asking if i will bring forward the president's proposal the answer is absolutely yes. i don't want the gentleman confused in any way. if the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option. but we don't -- we're not going to pretend either to ourselves or to the american people that's a real vote. you want to put it on the floor as an amendment. you want to have a real debate on it, not five minutes on one side and five minutes on the other side which the motion to recommit is limited to, you're shutting us down, you're gagging us and, yes, you are putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, i

know and the american people know the president of the united states has said he will veto your bill. he has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98% of americans do not get a tax increase. but what you will -- are proposing to do, mr. leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2%. 2% should not pay more and the gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. i understand what the gentleman is saying but, by the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. it was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009, and and i both know what happened is not solely because it was in place, of course, but -- i'll stimulate to that. but the fact is we had the deepest recession in year lifetime and my lifetime and

the lifetime of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we'll continue with. i tell you, mr. leader, i don't think that's a great way to proceed. at least we ought to have opportunity to debate. at least we ought to have five minutes more. it's a procedural vote, don't vote for it. i will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act and you do it knowledgeablely, it will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. why? whether you agree with it or not, the president will veto it. the senate i don't think will pass it. and the fact of the matter is we can do for 98% of america that which we agree on. you don't want them to have a tax increase. i don't want them to have a tax

increase. we agree on that. the americans can't understand, can't understand when we agree on that why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98% of america. in this struggling economy, as you clearly point out. now, you point out that -- you didn't use the term, we only had 80,000 jobs last month. i was disappointed by that. that was unfortunate. but in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in one month with your program in place. that's 189,000, almost 900,000 turn-around from 818,000 to 80 ,000 minus. not enough. not enough by far. and i want to work with the

gentleman to create many more, work with them on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, make it in america legislation. if we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful. so i say to my friend that i feel very strongly as you can tell that if we're going to have this vote, with is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute, not just an m.t.r., not just a procedural vote, not just a five-minute debate on my side, five-minute debate on your side. don't you think americans expkt more in terms of a very -- expect more in terms of a very substantive vote in a legislative policy form, and i ask the gentleman to consider that objective. does the gentleman have anything further? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at noon on tuesday, july 17, 2012, for morning hour debate, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of be a requested for mr. coble -- absence requested for mr. coble of north carolina today, ms. jackson lee of texas for today, and mr. rush of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, i rise today to draw attention to

how campaign superpacs are contributing unlimited campaign spending which shifts enormous political power to the superwealthy, ruled by those who truly threaten our republic and harm representative republic. look at this cartoon. shows how the superpacs really have a stranglehold on the politics of this country. with the citizens united ruling by the supreme court, they threw away decades of legal precedence governing campaign contributions and the result has been a growing stranglehold by the money barons in our political process. the american people know it and they know wher' not doing anything about it. at a minimum we should demand greater transparency of who actually is giving this money, no more donors, and i urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition, 4010, that's here on the floor today

to move the bill for disclosure to the floor. but what we should really do is pass a constitutional amendment to allow for campaign spending and contribution limits and i have that bill and i have had that bill congress after congress after congress, resolution 8. i encourage my colleagues to join me as a co-sponsor of. let's do what canada and britain has done and that's rule in the rule of the many by the few money barons. i yield back my remaining time. . the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? without objection. >> -- mr. andrews: today we learned american athletes -- mr. israel: today we learned that american athletes are wearing uniforms made in china. it is not just a label, it's an economic solution. today there are 600,000 vacant manufacturing jobs in this

country and the olympic committee is outsourcing the manufacturing of uniforms to china? that is not just outrageous, it's just plain dumb. it is self-defeating. madam speaker, i understand, my constituents understand the hard work, skills, dedication of athletes competing in the olympics. i think the committee has to understand the hard work, dedication, and skills of america's manufacturers, designers, and small businesses. and that's why today i'm calling on the olympic committee to reverse this decision and make sure that american athletes competing in the olympics are competing with labels that say made in america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. goalert: mark helprin is an author educated at harvard, princeton, columbia, having also served in the british merchant navy and israeli military, i will simply convey his words from an article first printed, three years before 9/11 propelled us into the realization that we had been at war for over 20 years, but only the other side knew it was a war. and also before we knew how crushing and debilitating our enormous debt would be and has become. i have shortened the words a bit and provide them here as they express them better than my own written words could. when letters -- the records by

the united states government could be moved in a single wagon pulled by two horses, we had great statesmanship. we had men of integrity and genius, washington, hamilton, franklin, jefferson, adams, madison, monroe. these were men who were in love with principle as if it were an art. which in their practice they made it. they studied empires that had fallen for the sake of doing what was right in a small country that had barely risen. and were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed in greatness each and every one of the classic models that they had approached in awe. now lost in the sands and complexity of a xanadu, when we

desperately need their high qualities of thought, the patience of deliberation, and unerring sense of balance, we have only what we have. which is a political class that in the main has abandoned the essential qualities of statesmanship. with the excuse that these are inappropriate to our age. they are wrong. not only do they fail to honor the principles of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them. having failed to learn them, having failed to want to learn them. in the main they are in it for themselves, were they not? they would have a higher rate of attrition. following with the colors of what they believe rather than always landing on their feet. adroitly but in dishonor. in light of their vows and

responsibilities, this constitutes not merely a failure but betrayal. and it is a betrayal not only of statesmanship and principle, but of country and kin. why is that? it is because things matter. even though they played like a gang by men who excel at making it a game, our life in this country, our history in this country, the sacrifices that have been made for this country, the lives that have been given for this country are not a game. my life is not a game. my children's lives are not a game. my parents' lives were not a game. your life is not a game. yes, it's true. we do have accumulated great stores of power, of wealth, and

decency against which those who pretend to lead us can draw when as a result of their vanities and ineptitudes they waste and expend the gifts of previous generations. the margin of error bequeathed to them allows them to present their failures as successes. they say as we are still standing and the chicken is in the pot, what does it matter if i break the links between action and consequence? work and reward? crime and punishment? merit and advancement? i myself cannot imagine a military threat and never could so what does it matter if i well shut the silo hatches -- weld shut the silo hatches on our lipids missile submarines, or shut my eyes to weapons of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of lunatics who are

building long-range missiles? our jurisprudence is the envy of the world, so what does it matter if now and then i perjure myself a little? what is a sacred trust? are not these the things that province of the kinds of people who are foolish enough to do without all of their lives? to wear ruts in the oregon trail. to brave the seas. to die on the beaches of normandy and iwo jima. and on the battlefields of shiloh and antietam for me. so that i can draw from america's great accounts and look good and be presidential and have fun and all kinds of ways. that is what they say. if not in words, then indelibly

in actions. they who in robbing peter to pay paul present themselves as payers and forget that they are also robbers. they who with steady compassion minister to some of us at the expense of others. they who make goodness and charity a public profession, depending on their election for well-mannered embrace of these things, and the power to move them not from within themselves or by their own sacrifices but by compulsion from others. they who, knowing very little or next to nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else what to do. they who believe absolutely in the recitation of pites pieties not because they believe in them but because they believe in

themselves. nearly 400 years, america's hard-earned accounts, the principles we established, the bats we fought, the morals we upheld for century after century, our very humility before god now flow promiscuously through our hands like blood on to sand. squandered and laid waste by generation that imagined history to have been but a prelude for what it would accomplish. more than a shame, it is despicable. yet this condition, this agony, this betrayal and disgusting show are not the end of things. principles are eternal. they stem not from our resolution or lack of it, but

from elsewhere, where impatient and infinite ranks they simply wait to be called. they can be read in history. they'll rise as if of their own accord when in the face of danger natural courage comes into play and honor and defiance are born. things such as courage and honor are the moral equifflent of certain laws, did -- equivalent of certain laws written throughout the une force. the rules -- universe. the rules of simtry and proportion, the laws -- symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of mathematics, human will, that not overwhelm natural but our own best aspirations have a life of their own. they lasted through far greater abuse tab them now. they can be neglected, but they cannot be lost.

they can be thrown down, but they cannot be broke wren. -- broken. each of them is different expression of a single quality from which each arises in its hour of need. some come to the floor as others stay back and then with changing circumstance those that have gone unnoticed rise to the occasion. rise to the occasion. the principle itself suggests from a phrase and such principle suggests easily and flow generously. you can grab them out of the air from phrases, from memories, from images, a statesman must rise to the occasion. democrats can could this. harry truman had the discipline of plowing a straight road 10, 12, 14 hours a day of rising and retiring with the sun, of struggling with temperamental machinery, of suffering heat and

cold and one injury after another. after a short time on a farm, presumptions about ruling others tend to vanish. it is as if you're pulled to the earth and held there. the man who works the land is hard put to think that he would direct armies and nations. truman understood the grave responsibility of being president of the united states and that it was a task too great for him or anyone else to accomplish without doing a great deal of injury. if not to some, then to others. he understood, therefore, that he had to transcend himself. there will be little inthe gentleman from of the job because he had to be always aware of the enormous consequences of everything he did.

contrast this with the unspeakably vulgar pleasure in the office of president clinton. truman absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was far greater than he could ever be was continually and deliberately aware of the weight of history. the accomplishments of his predecessors and by humble and imaginative projection, his own inadd quicy. the so bright and care that derived from this allowed him a rare privilege from modern ep presidents. -- modern presidents. to give to the presidency more than he took from it. it is not possible to occupy the oval office without arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. may god bless the president who adds to them and may god condemn the president who loots them.

america would not --would never have come out of the civil war as it did had it not been led by lincoln and lee. the battles raged for five years, but for 100 years, both north and south, modeled itself on their own character. they exemplified most perfectly churchill's statement, public men charged with the conduct of the war should live in the continual stress of soul. the continual stress of soul is necessary as well in peacetime because for every good deed in public life there is a counter balance. benefits are given only after taxes are taken. that is part of governance. the statesmen who represents the whole nation sees an equilibrium

for which he strives a continual tension between victory and defeat. if he did not understand this, he would have no stress of soul. he would merely be happy about money showered on the orphan, taken from the widow. about children sent to daycare so that they may be long absent from their parents. . about merciful parole of criminals who kill again. whereas a statesman knows continuous stressful soul, a politics is happy for he knows not what he does. it's difficult for individuals or nations to recognize that war and peace alternate, but they do.

no matter how long peace may last, it will end in war. though most people cannot believe at this moment that the united states of america will ever actually fight for its survival, but history guarantees that it will. and when it does, most people will not know what to do. they will believe of war as they did of peace. that it's ever lasting. the statesman who is different from everyone else will in the midst of despair see the end of war just as during the peace he was alive to the inevidentibility of war and saw it coming in the far distance as if it were gray, moving

quietly across a dark sea. now, the politician will level with his people and enjoy their enjoyments. the statesman in continuous stress of soul will think of destruction. as others move in the light he will move in the darkness so that others move in darkness he may move in the light. it is given to those of long and insistent vision is what saves nations. a statesman must have a temperament that is suited for the medal of honor. in a soul that is unafraid to die. rightly favor those who endured combat, not as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly believed, but because

of the willingness of the soldier to give his life is a strong sign of correct priorities. and that in the future he will truly understand the statesman are not rulers but are servants. even in the years of degradation, they have risked death in the sake of honor is better than having risked dishonor for the sake of life. no matter what you're told by the sophisticated classes that see virtue in every form of corruption and corruption in every form of virtue, i think you know as i that the american people hunger for acts of integrity and courage. the american people hunger for a statesman magnetized by the truth, unwilling to give up his

good name, uninterested in calculation, only for the sake of victory, unable to put his interests before those of the nation. what this means in practical terms is no focus groups, no polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises and no lies. these are the tools of the chameleon. they are employed to cheat the american people of honest answers to direct questions. if the average politician for fear that he may lose something is incapable of even a genuine yes or no, how is he supposed to rise to the great occasions of state. how is he supposed to face a destructive and implaqueable enemy? how is he supposed to understand the rightful destiny

of his country and lead it there? at the core nation of an english monarch, he is given a sword. elegislation bith ii took it last -- elizabeth ii took it last and before the alter she heard these words. receive this kingly sword brought now from the alter of god and delivered to you by us, the bishops and servants of god , go unworthy. with this sword do justice. stop the growth of enick wit. protect the holy church of god. help defend widows and orfhans. restore those that have gone to decay. maintains the -- punish those that are amiss and confirm what is in good order.

that doing these things may be glorious in all virtue and so faithfully serve the lord. we in america come once again to understand that statesmanship is not the appetite for power but because things matter a holy calling of self-sacrifice, we've made it something else. nonetheless, after and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the manifestation in political terms of beauty and balance and truth. it is the courage to tell the truth and thus discern what is

ahead. it is a mastery of symmetry of forces illuminated by the genius of speaking to the heart of things. statesmanship is equality that though it may be betrayed is always ready to be taken up again merely by honest subscription to its great things. have confidence that even in idleness its strengths are growing, for it is a providential gift given to us in times of need. evidently, we do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting, the time will surely come when we do and then, so help me god, i believe solely by the grace of god the corrupt will be thrown down and

the virtuous will rise up. slavery was an abomination, but statesmanship arose and statesmen fought until its demise. but 13 years after the forgoing words were said, we do so desperately need that statesmanship and god's unmitigated grace. we need his providential gift of this nation to us to endure so that additional generations will so enjoy. and in the process may god resume blessing these united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does

the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

minority leader pelosi was joined by chris van hollen of maryland, and following this 25-minute briefing we'll show you house speaker john boehner's weekly briefing. >> good morning. as you know yesterday once again for the 30th -- i don't know, 30-something time, the republicans tried to take away protections for patients in our country. a little baby born with a birth

defect, a child with a disability or asthma, cancer, diabetes, there's a senior who's getting prescription drugs, much less expensive because of the affordable care act or free wellness examinations once a year, whether it's women who are getting services and those will increase in august, whether it's this very, very powerful protection for patients and that is removing life-time limits on the coverage that they can receive, whether it's young adults who can be on their parent's policy until they're 26 years old, enabling them to follow their aspirations and not make decisions only based on where they have health care rather than what their aspirations and skills and talents take them to. so once again, once again the

republicans on the floor of the house spoke for and voted for the special interest over the people's interest.today as we hy after day, we are calling on the republicans in congress to pass the middle income tax cuts. the president laid out steps we can take right now that will bring more certainty and stability to our economy and be fair to the middle-class. republicans must stop holding middle income tax cuts hostage to their tax cuts for the very wealthy friends, big oil, special interests. what is important is the policies you see been advocating are directly related to politics and political climate

we are in. we cannot have the middle class weight on policy if you have -- into the political process. to suffocate the system, to suppress the vote, and poison the debate. that is why we issued a bear saying we dare you to disclose, to amend the constitution to overturn citizens united, to increase the role of small donors. our system depended on a democracy, for the voice and a vote of the many determine the outcome of the election, and the policies that the spring from that, not the checkbooks of the

very few, a plutocracy, the government of the rich, a government of the few, not of the many. that we have accountability and transparency, and that is why after the supreme court's misguided decision on citizens united, disclosure was one course of action, one of the few, that was available to us. the president took a lead on strengthening our democracy by holding firm to the thousand of our founders. chris van hollen is part of our leadership, the ranking democrat on the budget committee, and because of his knowledge of these issues he sees the direct relationship between politics and policy, and we are proud of his leadership on the disclose act, and i will yield to him to

talk about that next. >> thank you, madam leader, and as she sat at the outset, yesterday we saw the 33rd vote in the house of representatives to repeal the important protections that are contained in the affordable care act. there are a number of those where we had zero votes, one of which was the president's jobs initiatives which he presented to the house last september. no votes on that. the other was the disclose bill, which is designed to make sure voters know who is financing these campaigns so we can understand what special theerests are trying arerito ri rules of the economy in their favor. this is a house that is pretending to be one of the most open in recent times, and yet

they have refused to hold a hearing on the disclose act, not even a hearing. it has been requested many times by congressman brady, congressman gonzales, and others in the administration -- nothing. those members had to hold an official hearing to bring up facts on this issue because the majority refused to have a hearing. it is ironic that on a bill that is the cause for greater openness, house republicans refused to have an open hearing to talk about it. e act stands on a proper mission -- who is bankrolling these campaigns, and we recognize when these groups are financing campaigns that are doing it to try to elect to congress, to try to buy a congress.

they will rig rules in their favor. um hum the rules they want to change relate -- among the rules they want to change relate to important pieces of our economy. we have been working hard to overturn parts of the tax code that reward corporations that move american jobs overseas, to special tax havens like the cayman islands. we want to close those loopholes. there are a lot of individuals and businesses that benefit from keeping those in place. there are folks who would like that a tax code that tilts toward the wealthy. you see strong republican opposition to our proposal to extend tax relief to middle income americans, and they also get continuations of tax breaks for the wealthy instead of asking the wealthiest to contribute to reduce our deficit so we do not have to reduce the deficit at the expense of middle

income tax payers and seniors. that is what this is all about, shining a light on those contributions, and it is unfortunate our callers oppose that. we want to both commend senator reid the decision in the senate to take up the disclose act next week, and we think members of the house should have that same opportunity, which is what we just filed a discharge petition and that house of representatives, and we encourage all members, democrats and republicans, who believe voters have a right to know who is fighting to these elections to sign that very simple measure. and let us have a vote on it in the house. we had 33 votes on repealing import protections to patients.

but this have one vote on trying to pass legislation against riggning the rules. here is what senator mcconnell said -- "pop vince are in favor of disclosure. if you are going to do that and the senate is prepared to do that, then it needs to be meaningful disclosure. " we need to have real disclosure, and we want to include business organizations say you can include the major organizations in america. why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure ?"

we believe voters have a right to know, voters have to full disclosure, at all the house republicans and senator mcconnell me to do is to vote in favor of the disclose act and file the discharge petition we file today to bring it up in the house. we hope they will do that. thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman ban hollen. when this decision came down, we passed disclose act in the house, and went over to the senate, where we only have 59 democrats, and the cannot get one statements of the leader and others, they abandoned that because they knew they did not want accountability and transparency in the contributions that are made under something that is so bizarre that the court would say, any and all money, secret,

otherwise, who knows where, should be allowed into our system. thank you for your leadership on that. the senate will be taking it up again, and our members are very enthusiastic about signing the discharge petition to that effect. any questions on that? >> a different matter. the judiciary committee hearing yesterday, there is discussion about intelligence. johngest he would like tothe committee conduct an investigation. do you think that is the proper course of action, and who do you think they should look at and question if they want to forge ahead? >> now the administration has put in place a look at how these

leaks occurred. it is not in anybody's but i think let's pursue won a remedy, which is the investigation that the assignment -- that the administration has given as an assignme congressional oversight is a major part of this, and committees can always bring in any agency of government in its jurisdiction to ask those questions. you asked a specific one about do i think there needs to be a judiciary committee investigation. othersee how he and investigation goes first. [unintelligible] of wanted to focus on what mr. van hollen has as its

possibilities. if you have any questions about this legislation that is fundamental to our democracy and the vitality of the middle- class. >> what effort did you make to get republicans to work with you on disclosure? you quoted senator mcconnell. did you make overtures to get their cooperation >> the short answer is yes. we tried to get republicans on board. number of republicans have indicated they are in favor of the disclose bill, but the republican leadership has been very clear on this, that they do not want to allow any kind of transparency and any kind of disclosure. we have seen a total flip-flop from senator mcconnell on this issue. interestingly, while this is a

united decision creating big problems, there was one issue on which eight of the nine justices agreed, and that was the disclosure is not only constitutional, but for the help attractants -- democracy. the only dissenter was justice thomas. we hope on a bipartisan basis we can take this up. there has been a disturbing trend among many republicans against transparency. one is their opposition to this. we are seeing their candidate refused to divulge his tax records. his father set the standard for doing that, and now he refuses to disclose in that area. so we believe transparency and disclosure is important, and there is an important link between thesere and an effort to let the

congress those who will bring the rules of the game in favor of certain economic interests, which do not serve the interests of middle income america. >> it is important to note that governor romney would not be considered to be a member of a cabinet that this -- that requires disclosure be made. he is running for president, wanting to win and appoint a cabinet which will have more disclosure than he has -- that is not going to happen. he could not even become a cabinet member for that lack of disclosure, and now with that lack of disclosure he wants to be president of the united states. >> is this about legislating for disclosure or messaging?

in your preamble you went right to buzz words like cayman islands and switzerland. your answer goes to work mitt romney. mitt romney is not a member of this legislature. many republicans say they are all for it, they might turn around and say the election is if you mu -- the election is a few months away. >> i do not know why any member should say -- all people have to do is disclosed. " to allow voters the right to know who is financing campaigns. if they believe in that they should vote for it. all governor romney has to do is discos like his father did. the person who wants to be the chief executive and control the finances of the united states

should tell the american people how he conducts his own finances. all people have to do to address the issue is vote for disclosure. >> many of the republicans who have spoken out on disclosure in their own state -- have had to come under the strict requirement by their leadership in the senate that they have to vote with them on the disclosure, despite the public statements of the republican leader in the senate and their own efforts to transparency in their own states at home. we will go back to the farm bill then put on this subject. >> senator mcconnell says that to disclose act treats businesses differently from

unions. is there some ground to give on the union question to get republicans on board? >> that is just totally not true. a look at the house disclosed bill, take a look at the senate disclosed built. it treats all interests uniformly, business, union interests, so i would be interested in hearing from senator mcconnell exactly what provision and that senate bill or the house bill treats unions any differently than businesses. it is not true. there were on some earlier versions of the act provisions people pointed to to make that argument. we did not think they were accurate then, but we remove those provisions. to the extent people were relying on the earlier provisions to make the argument, there is no longer any grounds to make it. >> accept he is always thinking

that the special interests be treated like everybody else and do a service to them, which could be. >> he is making two arguments. he is making the argument you just made which is no longer valid. he has gone way beyond that. he is now taking the position that justice thomas took. in his speech the other day, he quoted justice thomas, which puts mitch mcconnell wait outside the mainstream here. you had every other supreme court justice not only saying this was constitution, but saying it was important to the health of our democracy. virtually every american would agree that the idea of disclosure is important to the democratic process. i understand why mcconnell is out there fighting this preemptively. he recognizes what a vulnerability this is because

the overwhelming majority of the people believe in the simple proposition that voters have a right to know who is financing these campaigns. >> many of the people who are bankrolling these campaigns fall into the category of anti- government ideologue spirit that is why i said earlier you cannot have fairness in policy in the politics out side. for them to have an undue weight is they had the money and freedom of expression date due, that is giving the american people their right to know. and so the recent it is so damaging to a democracy is that it not only undermines the voice of the many, it also suffocates any vitality of ideas and that congress if you own it. you get your tax breaks.

the cost of doing business, $400 million, into campaigns is very offset by the tax cuts you will get an at the same time diminish the public role in the public- private partnership that exists in our country. there is a special interest and there is an ideological orthodoxy here that is served by big money. suffocating the system, suppressing the vote, we think nothing less is at stake in this election than our democracy, and there is a path to legitimizing what they are seen by having them at met identified with back. >> how much of this is about the fact that republicans are out raising money against democrats proved them up nothing.

recordats have been on w for a long time to reform the system. we pass a bill for bush sr. even if we could outraise them, everybody should disclose. this is about democracy. it is stunning that the supreme court should take such an approach to how we go forward. i completely disagree with what they did, but everybody should disclose, and i think we should amend the constitution to do away with that and reformed the get rid ofwe havcan these pacs. the pac to end all pacs.

this is something that is fundamental to the democracy. you cannot have big money on any side making that determination. let's get this an opportunity, because it is so apparent when people put up $400 million -- what is it that they want? they want tax breaks. we need to have public-private partnerships. this is a subject that many of us have spent our lives in politics on, increasing the voice of the many in our country. i promised to go to the farm bill at some point. >[unintelligible] >> what do you think of what has happened? what would you like to see going

forward? >> because it passed the middle of the night, i have not seen the whole of it. what i would like is -- i hope the bill in whatever comes next comes closer to the senate bill. the cuts to nutrition are totally unacceptable to the extent that they are in that bill and would hope that there would be more bipartisan agreement on something that looks more like the senate bill. i hope we do get a farm bill. i do not know if it will even come to the house for a vote. do you know? >> no. i was hoping you would. >> a person i was speaking to said they did not know either. >> the abc news report last

night about the outfits for the opening ceremony. you have been making america a central focus, and these uniforms are made in china. does that strike you as an unfair to american companies? >> yes. i think we take great pride in our olympic athletes and try to watch as many of the trials as possible. i cannot wait to stay up all night to see as much as possible. they worked so hard. they represent the very best. it is also beautiful and they should be in uniforms made in america. >> increasing frustration about the absence of congressman jack sen. members want more than an explanation. last night, jackson put out an

information saying he is suffering from a mood disorder. >> let's talk about the long term absence. how many legislative days have we been in since the congressman was output 12 days. if you go by the calendar, which cannot do around here because we meet infrequently, and not for very much time. let me say as i said yesterday about congressman jackson. our prayers and thoughts are with him and his family. we wish him the comfort he needs to get well. i said at the time he may have had a handle on what the evaluation was, and they have. i do not know if members have said anything to you, but no member said anything to me about it. >> have you spoken with his

family? >> not since his statement. i think that statement should enable him have the care and time he needs to get well, and his constituents to know what is the nature of this, because we just did not know and now we do. >> now that the election is being cast as a referendum on tax policy, if republicans were to win, would democrats dropped their objections on the tax breaks? >> on the tax breaks that did not create jobs that got us into the fix we're in now? no, that is not fair. mr. van hollen also has served on the ways and means committee, and perhaps he would like to

speak. >> good morning, everyone. last week's report was another reminder that the president's policies have not just failed, but they have made things worse. 12.7 million americans are on the unemployment rolls. many have thrown in the towel and had given up looking for work altogether. many more are unemployed now than when the president was inaugurated. the rate has been stock higher than 8% for 41 consecutive months. this is the longest streak since the great depression. the president's stimulus binge was supposed to have us well below 6% unemployment by this

point. instead, "wall street journal" and other reports say the obama administration outsourced stimulus dollars to foreign companies and workers. americans are asking the questions, where are the jobs they have the right to know where that help the obama administration shift their tax dollars overseas during a recession here at home. the president owes all americans and explanation. democrats have shown us what does not work. that is why the house has focused on removing government barriers and getting washington out of the way. we passed more than 30 jobs bills, including bills that increase energy production, including the keystone pipeline.

we will vote later this month to stop the government from imposing new regulations on the private sector. at the end of the month we will vote to stop the largest tax hike in history that is due to hit people and small businesses on january 1. we will lay the groundwork for tax reform that closes loopholes and lowers rates for all. fixing the tax code will boost economic growth and create jobs by lowering taxes on companies so they can be more competitive with foreign competition. this will keep more jobs in america and bring jobs that have gone overseas back home. unfortunately, the president and senate democrats are not focused on jobs. the president is out there campaigning for a tax hike on 900,000 small businesses that his own party will not even support.

senate democrats were given a chance to vote on the president's tax hike and they rejected it. the american people are tired of the games and what washington to focus on jobs. republicans are listening and our colleagues across the aisle are not. whoa, whoa, whoa. jay? >> the farmville packs committee -- what are the plans for that? >> i think chairman lucas and the committee have done a lot of good work. no decisions about it coming to the floor at this point. >> will it come in july? >> no decisions at this point. >> [unintelligible] republicans have said they did not want to bring forward [unintelligible] a bill.

republicans have said they are waiting for the senate act on the bill. [unintelligible] >> we're not going to make mistakes made in the past. we will not pass kate 2700-page bill that nobody ever read. one not pass a bill and then have people find out what was in it after it was passed. we believe in a common-sense approach that will make our current health care delivery system work much better. things like allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, things like ending junk lawsuits that not only drive up costs for doctors, but require doctors to call for more tests than required because they are afraid of being sued.

how about allowing small companies to group together for the purposes of health insurance so they can buy health insurance at more competitive rates like big companies and unions? there are clear ideas we have had for some time that we continue to believe in. [unintelligible] >> regardless of the legality of its, how patriotic the you think it is for mitt romney to keep some of his wealth offshore in switzerland or in the cayman islands when he is running for president of the invited states? >> i am not aware of that. >whoa, whoa, whoa. remember, there is a rule here. [unintelligible] >> how deep you think the obama administration is grappling -- [unintelligible] not going to disclose

classified information, but the threat from iran israel. it is oriole for our ally -- it is real for israel and for all the countries in the region. i think we passed and iran sanctions bill where we gave the president a full toolbox, anxious to use to help bring the iranians to heel. the press tent ought to use more of the tools that were given to him -- the president ought to use more of the tools that were given to him to get iran to declare that they are not on to produce nuclear weapons. >> mentioned the closing of tax loopholes as part of reform. senator lindsey graham and other

republicans are talking to democrats about closing loopholes and getting rid of the defense sequester next year. are you willing to consider closing those loopholes to get rid of the sequester, or do those have to close only for comprehensive tax reform? >> raising taxes in a weak economy is not a good idea. we are serious about being down corporate and personal traits, closing those loopholes, those special deals and other credit in the tax code that need to come as a part of overall tax reform. >> on the president's proposal on income taxes, he says everybody agrees on 250,000 and below. why not take it for now, and when it mitt romney wins the election, then he can easily do

it. if president obama wins, when you continue to oppose delinking the tax cuts for the middle class? >> raising taxes in an economy that is we will not help create jobs in america. we believe in extending all the tax rates is the appropriate course of action, and our proposal would be to extend them for one time to provide time for us to do real tax reform. the president has been tracking this idea out now for four years. not even democrats will support it. mitch mcconnell, senator mcconnell, yesterday offered to have a vote on the president's plan, that was rejected by the majority leader. democrats and house will have an opportunity later this month to offer the president's plan.

i hope they take advantage of its. -- of it. >> the u.s. olympic team is going to mbe wearing a chinese- made uniforms. [unintelligible] what are your concerns about that? >> a number of conservative groups issued statements earlier in the week that the bill is too expensive. over the years you have advocated a smaller farm bill. do you have any reaction did this criticism? >> there are some good reforms in this farm bill, and there are other parts of the bill that i have concerns about. we have got a soviet-style program in america today, and one of the proposals in the farm

bill would make it worse. there are parts of the bill but i could be critical of, but having been a chairman, i understand the difficulty in trying to put together a complicated bill. i understand the challenge that chairman lucas had tried to get a bill put together. i reserve the rest of my comments over the farm bill so i can get a closer look at it. >> governor romney's speech to the naacp, specifically when he was booed when he said he was gone to repeal "obamacare." >> if you look at the broader speech, there were times when he got a resounding applause. i congratulate governor romney for going and accepting the invitation to speak. governor romney is running for

president of the united states to represent all americans, so he should be congratulated on reaching out to all of them. [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> that is one of the best things i have done. >> mitt romney talked about cracking down on chinese currency manipulation. you voted 8 against a bill in 2010. the senate had a bill in 2011, which you voted against it. how can mitt romney talk about this when you have shown no effort to do it here in the house? >> there is a way to deal with this problem and a way not to deal with that. congress passing a law outlining stringent requirements for dealing with the chinese and the

dow of their currency ike is inappropriate. every administration for the last 15 years has worked the chinese central bank and the chinese government to get them to read about you their currency, and if you have watched, the value of their currency has continued to come up in each of these 15 years. i think each administration, the treasury secretaries, have worked to resolve this problem. more work needs to be done, so there is no differences here in terms of the needs to solve the problem. it is a matter of how to best to solve the problem. >> the you have any issues with congressman jackson's explanation for his absence, and you think his office should diebold more information about his condition?

>> we hope he gets well singh and hope he gets back since. this is an issue between he and his constituents. i hope to see him back soon. last one. >> [unintelligible] house conservatives are asking you to defund the hhs sterilization mandate. >> i have not seen this letter yet, but i am about to get it. when i get it, i will be able to comment on it. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] senatee live at the office building waiting for the

start of a homeland security committee. the hearing should get underway shortly, but it is being delayed because there are several boats under way on the senate floor regarding a bill that provides a payroll tax credit for businesses that hire workers or get pay increases this year. several boats underweight including final passage expected, said the hearing will get underway later than expected. in the meantime, discussion of the farm bill which pass its today in committee and has a september 30 deadline looming to reconcile with the senate version. rosa delauro is a member of the operations committee.

host: what does that mean for the program? guest: it is a question of what it means for the people who rely on the program every single day. 46 million people are being fed to the program on a daily basis. let's step back. we're talking about a difficult economy today, the worst recession since the depression. families are struggling. people who never thought they were going to have to seek -- feed themselves or their families through the food stamp program. that is happening. check with any of my colleagues throughout the united states, and every single congressional district, we are seeing a rise of hunker in the united -- hong

in the united states. one out of seven people in my district are called food insecure. this is a euphemism for people not knowing where their next meal is coming from. when you look at cutting $16 billion-plus on the food stamp program, what you are talking about is 3 million, mostly youngsters, because of the 46 million people on food stamps today, 21 million of them are children. they changed the name of this program a few years ago. host: what are the names of the programs that people may know better? guest: it is the food stamp

program, but also could be nutrition programs, the school breakfast program, emergency food program, which is how our food pantries access supplies. people come in to take advantage of these to take the opportunity to be able to get food to put on their table. if you have a drastic cut, you're wrong to see up to 3 million people who are no longer able to access the food stamp program. you'll see children, infants, and toddlers who are not want to be able to get food in the united states of america, accountable country. it is immoral. talk more about what happened yesterday, but the farm bill, when you contrast what they did in the farm bill with crop insurance -- the government picks up 60% of the cost of the

premiums for crop insurance. that does not include administrative costs. i told you about 46 million people who accessed footsteps every day. we have roughly about 4% of the beneficiaries of the crop insurance program get 1/3 of the premium subsidies. 26 of its beneficiaries get at least $1 million in subsidies. that is 26, versus 46 million people, who, for lesson $5 a day for the food stamp program, and $1.50 per meal. host: we will show the viewers of some of the statistics. about 46 million people receive about $134 per month. that is 15% of the u.s. population. it has increased 70% since 2007,

and spending rose to $72 billion in 2011 cut up $30 billion from 2007. does the increase all have to do with the rough economy? >> yes, the rough economy that we are seeing. what is important about the food stamp program is -- and the way it was designed, is when there are a couple times, the numbers rise, and people who accessed the program, who are using the program, that number rises. when the economy gets better, when we focus on putting people back to work so they can -- we see the numbers drop. we're beginning to see a slight decrease in the numbers, but it is about getting our economy back on track, about making sure people are going back to work. people today, many of them who

are using the stamps, never thought they would have to use a food stamp program. people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own who are struggling every single day and week in order to make ends meet and quite frankly and literally to put food on their table for their family. host: this is from bloomberg government. food stamp folls are expanding even as unemployment decreases. the number of people on the steps is continuing to rise. some of the folks are concerned it has become too easy for folks to get access. guest: when we talk about the unemployment numbers, they talk about there is unemployment that is 8.2%. that does not include people who have stopped looking for jobs.

we are looking at probably a higher number, given the number of people who have stopped looking for jobs, people who have been unemployed for a year, two years, who are unable to find jobs. let me give you an example of the uses of the food stamp program. in connecticut, a young woman who was using the food bank in new haven, had three children, 18, 14, and 10 years old. it is a middle-class blue-collar community. she lost her job. this was a woman who was involved in purchasing benefits investments. she lost her job through no fault of her own. her unemployment makes her not

eligible for the program. she got to a microphone and spoke about her three boys, saying her family eat one meal a day. she cannot afford to put food on the table. she uses the food bank in order to take advantage of that emergency food assistance program. this would be cut if we cut the food stamp program. these are stories of real people who are trying to feed their families in the united states. at the same time we're providing 26 beneficiaries of a crop insurance at least $1 million. there is no threshold, no cap on the amount of money that a beneficiary of crop insurance and get. there is a cap. it roughly is about around $30,000 for a family of four.

he did not meet that eligibility requirement, you cannot access the food stamps. host: that may play a clip from the chairman of the agricultural committee for the reason for these cuts. [video clip] >> we close loopholes in the supplemental assistance programs. some of the cuts we proposed for food stamps are not enough, while others say the cuts are too much. i believe and most americans will agree 82% cut in good stead as is reasonable. this legislation will not help families from receiving their benefits. we are working to better target the program and improve its integrity so families most in need can continue to receive nutrition assistance. host: de you think there is any

abuse going on in this program that needs to be addressed? guest: and just about every program we at deal in one has to take a look to make sure there's no fraud, no waste, and no of bees. rate,frankly, the error overpayments and other payments, is around 3.8%. this is one of the lowest error rates and of any federal program. when you look at the irs we're looking at over 16% rate. people who are sheltering their income summer else or not paying their taxes. if we can shut those loopholes down, we should do that. that is not what we're doing

here. we're run to cut benefits to 3 million people. 300,000 children are no longer going to be able to get a school lunch program. that is taking the food out of the malice of our children. over half of the food stamp recipients are children. quite frankly, their children, seniors, disabled, at families of returning veterans are now having to access the programs. if you want to take a look at fraud and abuse, let's look at the crop insurance program. i am surprised that chairman lucas did not address the fact that we have 26 million bucks 26 individual beneficiaries will receive at least a million dollars in premium subsidies. i support crop insurance. i have farmers in my district.

it should be equitable nationwide and it should be equitable in terms of the costs that it covers. host: we're taking your calls this morning. we will put the numbers for you to call in. we will go to cape cod, massachusetts. rick is on the independent line this morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you make a statement yesterday concerning the advisability elf purchasing soft drinks with food stamps and maybe that is the only way recipients can fill the bellows of their children. is that the message that wants to go out to this country, that bohydratestuff car trad down the throats of these children? guest: anyone who knows me knows

that i believe that that is not the case. one of the interesting fact that you should know is when you go into the crash restore and you are looking at buying what would be a healthy drink, fruit t juice, it is a ratty $49 cents for a bottle. on the other hand, you look at two-liter bottles of the sugar drinks, it is 79 cents, up 8 cents. you are a consumer. you will go in and you are of limited means. you are going to look for something that you can afford, and that will fill up your own family and your children. i do not believe that is the right thing to do. we should look across the board

and i am a strong supporter of nutrition, but look at the ways in which we can bring down the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh fruit juice i talked about. let's look at what we can do to take a look at putting two or three cents on the purchase of that. what kinds of crops are being subsidized? i am not saying that because we should address the issue, because these sugary drinks are hurting our children, our families, and the cost is in their health care costs and the issue of obesity. host: joseph rights is in on --tter a person on the committee supports these cuts over 10 years, correct?

guest: i would disagree with my dear friend and colleague. we worked closely together in the last farm bill, and i was fortunate enough to be on that committee, where we made some changes in food stamps, thereby allow more people who are eligible to be able to access the program. we disagree on the nature of the cuts. host: you disagreed with the senate cuts? guest: 4.5 been dollars in the senate, and those cuts, yes, because beneficiaries are being cut for the program. the bulk of the farm program is about a farm safety net. it is about 80% or more of the program. where we are cutting direct payments, which is what the senate bill did, we are helping

to mitigate against that through a crop insurance programs, through other programs that deal with the prices of crops gone up, how to make farmers whole. when we had a difficult time we have to address people's economic needs. the only group of people who will see a benefit cut are going to be those who are at -- the most vulnerable, seniors and children, who are going to see benefit cuts, and that occurs in the senate program, in the bill, as well, which is what i am opposed to that. host: about 47% have children under 18 get food stamps, which is according to the department of agriculture. a% age 60 and older couples and

the average monthly benefit is $287. >> $134 for the average house. you're talking about people who are making $30,000 or less, because you are capped at 133% of the poverty level. host: good morning, up rectory. caller: good morning. i am so proud of you stan up to this madness. we need democrats to stand toe to toe with this madness, what they're putting out there, what is going on. i am glad you are for the food stamp program for the people. keep fighting for people who need to eat. we need to -- when it comes to trying to feed our own people,

this conservative party is out of their mind. doing,ing what you're because god has your back. writtenesta question through e-mail. i agree with your guessed that the kid should go hungry, but we have no money to pay for it. how does she suggest we pay for it? thet: let's take a look at subsidies in the program that have been approved. is it right that 26 beneficiaries of the crop insurance program are paid at least $1 million a year? there is no cap on income for those individuals. 4% of the beneficiaries of the crop insurance program are people =-- just 4% who are

getting once last three of the premiums. the federal government is paying roughly 60% of the premiums. you are a beneficiary of the crop insurance program, you take out an insurance policy, the federal government pays roughly 60% of the cost of that premium , in addition to all the administrative expenses. 26 people getting at least $1 million. we're talking about $134 a month, $1.50 a day per meal, less than $5 a day for the fifth step program for 46 million people. that is one way to pay for it. that's look at the subsidies we provide to the oil and gas industry. do we think they are struggling prove the you think those ceo's are having trouble putting food

on the table? we get than $4 billion a year. >> we'll take you live now to the senate homeland security committee as they consider the nomination of stephen crawford. arper chairing this hearing. the board of governors tracks and controls postal service expenditures, reduce its practices, and sets policy all postal matters. it consists of nine governors. it consists of nine. there should be getting under way shortly. >> his intelligence, his expertise, and his leadership skills. he has experience in this area.

he has proposed a number of and experiences -- initiatives for a change in the business model in a paper industry commission including new revenue streams, his ideas on open source of innovation and collaborative and a mission that harnesses the creativity of the employees and congress -- customers to build a better post office are relevant to the needs for reforms. at the same time, dr. crawford understands the importance of reforms that preserve our community as we continue to build the vision for an efficient and reliable service. let me point out some of dr. crawford's experiences. his leadership experience. he was executive director at the center for international security studies in the school of public policy at the university of maryland. he was the executive director of

the governor's workforce investment board, which is very much involved in the type of issues that will be confronting the postal service. he was successful in getting maryland general assembly to give adequate budget support for those efforts, which was not an easy task, showing his political ability. he helped develop a policy association where he served as vice president and cfo. he showed his experience at all levels of government. he was the deputy director of the metropolitan policy program at the brookings institution, and today he is a research professor at the george washington institute of public policy. he has a wealth of experience in the public and private sector, and experiences related directly to the challenges faced by u.s. postal service. he holds a bachelor's degree

from cornell, a ph.d. in economics from columbia, and a master's degree in public finance from wharton business school at the university of pennsylvania. impressive credentials. he is a strong history of civic engagement. he served our nation in the u.s. army where he earned six medals including the bronze star in vietnam. the postal service needs people like him that can deal with the crisis that can be confronted in a direct way, but always mindful of the responsibilities to the public. i am honored to present him to you and urged the committee to consider his nomination as promptly as possible. >> thank you. i would just ask, is there anything he said you would disagree with? >> -- [laughter]

>> i've been watching your wife, and she has been nodding her head. those are nice things to say about anybody, and our nominee. thank you. today, we're here to consider the nomination of stephen offered to be a member of the postal service board of governors whenever one of the senators, sometimes both of them, are able to come by and introduce a witness. it says a lot about the regard they have for you. we have a lot of respect for ben, so it is good he could come. as i know and the nominee is aware, the postal service has faced a challenging and even dire financial troubles for some time. the trouble will come to a head in the coming months with the

postal service reporting record losses each quarter, hemorrhaging about $25 million each day. by the end of this fiscal year it is likely it will not have enough money to meet health and workers' compensation obligations, and by sometime in 2013 we are told it will not have enough money to continue operations at all. i would like to see the situation is dire, but not hopeless this is a set of problems that we can fix. the legislation we passed in the senate will go a long way towards fixing it, allowing the postal service to heal itself. we need our friends in the house to pass a bill so that we can go to conference and hammer out a better bill. the postal service operates at the center of the $1 trillion mailing industry that puts as many as 8 million men and women to work every day.

is a key cog in our economy. its continued vitality is no important part of our efforts to get the economy moving again. at a time with some much economic uncertainty, we cannot let the postal service collapse or let -- and commit. the senate has passed legislation that attempts to address the postal service's near-term financial crisis and give it some of the tools it needs to address long-term challenges, not just working on the expense side, the making sure we do work on the revenue side our ability to clean up the postal service's books -- side. our bill will clear that the postal service's books, setting aside a more realistic schedule for funding retiree health obligations. even with we have done here in the senate bill is probably more

conservative than most state and local governments, and perhaps more than most businesses with regard to retiree obligations. a portion of the pension reform would come back to the postal service with a refund and it would encourage about 100,000 postal employees to retire. it is an effort that could save as much as $8 billion a year, more than one-third, almost one- half of what they are deluding. the bill would also push the postal service to streamline processing, delivery and retail networks and a more gradual pace than postal management would have liked. these provisions would have liked -- about the postal service to achieve billions of dollars in savings while preserving levels of service many customers rely on. if the cost-cutting efforts do not prove sufficient, the postal service will have to move for both with more aggressive efforts. -- forward with more aggressive efforts. our bill also focuses on

encouraging the postal service to be more entrepreneur will, something our nominee has been an advocate for, and does this in part by pushing the postal service to find innovative ways to bring in more male, mail volume, and make the best use of the system that it maintains, in a to deliver to every home and business six days a week. as a said before, a bill is not perfect. legislation that large is not likely to be perfect and it does not begin to solve every single problem faced by the postal service, but it gets us most of the way there and depending how serious the postal master general and his team are, it has the potential to get this to our goal of financial stability for the postal service and that, given where we are today would

be a good day's work. our nominee before us today, mr. crawford, has significant academic research in public policy and i am learning to -- untested to learn how that would benefit the postal service during this time. we would also like to hear more about how his back on will help him if confirmed in working with the rest of the board of governors to tackle the major -- the challenges they face not just this year, but in years to come. if senator brown were here, and he may join us in a little bit, then we will recognize him for whatever comments he wishes to make. if he wants to submit a statement for the record, we would be happy to have that. dr. crawford has filed responses to a questionnaire, answered questions submitted by members of our committee and staff, a

financial statements reviewed by the office of government ethics, and without objection this'll be made part of the hearing record, with exception of the financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection at the committee office, and since i'm the only one here on the committee, i hear no objection, and i will not object. our committee rules require that all witnesses give their testimony under oath. dr. crawford, please stand and raise your right hand. my script says to raise your right hands, coral. -- plural. i have never had a witness stand and raise two right hands. if you do that, we will go right to your confirmation. [applause] [laughter] >> these where the testimony will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god?

let's give you a chance to give your statement. if there's anybody in the audience you would like to introduce, you're more than welcome to do that. please go forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased that my wife is here with me. she might have to leave early to pick up our 12-year-old daughter who is at a camp performance. we will see how that plays out. >> it is very nice to see you. thank you for coming here and your willingness to share your husband with our country one more time. were you married when he was in the military? now. how it. we will proceed. you can talk for as long as you want. if it gets to be about 6:00, we will wrap it up.

[laughter] >>chairman carper, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am truly honored to be nominated by the president to serve on the board of governors of the u.s. postal service, and i am pleased to share with the committee, how, if confirmed, i responsibilities involved. as you know, the postal service faces enormous challenges. in assessing them, i find it helpful to keep in mind the magnitude of what's at stake. in my view, the postal service remains a vital national asset. it directly employs almost a half million americans, and it $1 trillion industry that employs 8 million others.

although mail volume has declined from its 2007 peak, the postal service still delivered 168 billion pieces of mail last year to more than 150 millionmany of these households depend on those deliveries for essential services that they could not afford were it not for the postal service's important commitment to universal service. similarly, many small businesses, nonprofits, publishers and other mailers depend on the postal service's internationally recognized efficiency and reliability. amazingly, this vital institution now finds itself on the verge of insolvency. it is in these dire straits, i believe, for three main reasons -- the growth of electronic communications and resulting diversion of first class mail, the recent recession and its lingering impact and the unique regulatory environment in which it operates.

while there seems to be broad agreement on these causes of the postal service's deficit, there is considerable disagreement about how to fix it. some emphasize cutting costs by consolidating facilities, reducing delivery frequency and/or changing service standards. some emphasize increasing and services. some call for adjusting the price cap, and many call for changing the current requirements for prefunding the health benefits of future retirees. are so severe that the postal service should explore all the above, as in fact it has been doing, aided recently by the senate's passage of s-1789. i say that as someone whose past experience has included privileged opportunities to examine the postal service's problems in broad terms.

yet, if confirmed, my views might evolve as i learn more. as a board member, i would carefully consider all reasonable options and make decisions based on my sense of what is best for the country and the long-term health of the postal service. i would approach these decisions as someone who listens carefully and communicates honestly, takes seriously the interests of all involved parties, and yet believes strongly in innovation and leadership. i believe that my prior experience has prepared me well to serve on the board and to make distinctive and significant contributions to its work. to be sure, i have never managed an organization of more than 50,000 employees. however, i have advised and worked closely with the top

leaders of such organizations, especially state governors but also corporate ceo's and university presidents. as the executive director of -- i have conducted research. a research colleague and i recently briefed at her request, undersecretary of education martha kanto and her sonr senior staff on our ideas for streamlining higher education, another industry where rising costs and alternatives are calling into question the business model. finally, is a member of the obama-joe biden transition team, i've had wonderful opportunities to assess the problems and solutions facing the postal service, the mailing industry and related government

agencies like the office of inspector general. in closing, i would like to thank you to the committee for its impressive efforts over many years to provide the policy framework needed to enable the postal service to accomplish its model mission. it is clearly a difficult task in today's rapidly changing environment, but i am optimistic that good solutions are within reach. i look forward, if confirmed, to working with the committee, you, and all the postal service's stakeholders on crafting and implementing such solutions. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today and welcome your questions. >> that was a good statement. i'm sorry more of my colleagues were not here to hear it. i need to start the question with the standard questions we ask of all nominees.

the first is, is there anything aware of in your back from that might present a conflict of interest with the duties to the office of we should have been nominated. >> no, mr. chairman, there is not. >> do you know anything that would prevent you from fully and honorably discharged in the responsibilities of the office for -- for which of the nominated? >> no, sir. >> number 3, the you agree with the reservation to respond to any summoned to testify before any constitution of congress if you are confirmed? >> i do. >> in that case, we can go on to these other questions, that might be harder to answer, but we will give it a shot. legislation signed into law by president george w. bush in 2006, that i and others worked on, requires at least four

members of the nine members of the board of governors have experience managing large organizations, and aside co- authored the legislation, our goal with this provision was to encourage the president to send nominees to the board with relevant business experience, something that was sorely lacking on the body at the time. we have some governors with business experience, but not as much as we hoped to have when we were drafting the 2006 law. could you share your thoughts on the qualification criteria for the board and what you think he would bring to the body if confirmed? >> i am happy to. for sure, i've never run an organization of 50,000 people, or anything like it, but i headed an independent agency of maryland state government. it was an organization of

80,000, the full state government, but i headed a small agency, a small staff that did oversee the work force operations around the state. that is not what paea had in mind when they were talking about experience running a large logistics' firm or some sort of big enterprise like that. i applaud the thinking. 50,000 is a high bar given there are many. as of high-tech companies and the ceo's of those companies would be disqualified. putting aside 50,000, 40,000, whatever the number is, it seems the bigger issue is the kind of experience in working with leaders in industry and the private sector, but also having some connection to the public policy side of these issues, because clearly the postal service is not purely private

enterprise. i think that my experience as an attempt director of three organizations, as someone who is working state government, the private sector, then in think tanks where we have analyzed public policy issues, especially issues of innovation and economic growth and the kinds of new business models that are increasingly talked about as critical, i would just add that one issue is technology has changed. quite often, the old business models are not well-suited to exploiting their full potential, yet changing business models is very tough when you have been established pattern. i have had the opportunity to delve into the literature and work with experts on that area, and i hope that will enable me to contribute in that respect, but i am very serious about the innovation side.

i think there are great opportunities for the postal service, and i think my background working on open source of innovation and variants of that will be useful and different from what some of the other board members bring to it. >> ok. thank you for those comments. when we met in my office earlier this week you've shared with us and you mentioned today your work on the obama-bide transitionn team. when you talk about how your experience relates to the postal service? >> it was an extraordinary experience for me. like most americans, i took the postal service for granted. my mail is there every day. i go out and get it. when my "economist, did not

arrive saturday, i would get it on monday, and that sort of an annoyed me. i found myself in revealing members of the postal regulatory commission, members of the board of governors, senior management, the leaders of all of the unions, the mailers in their associations, so i had an extraordinary opportunity to get a look at the big picture for the mailing industry and the critical role the postal service plays in that, but i also had my eyes opened to the challenges that the postal service faces because even then it was clear that the growth of the e-mail and declining volumes, and the increase in the number of delivery points -- i wrote a paper for the transition team that is a private paper, but everybody knows the number of delivery points goes up by more

than 1 million a year, and at the same time the volume of mail goes down every year, and it has done now. >> when do you think it peaked? what year? >> i have heard different stories on the. if 2007 is the peak that i used in my opening statement, and i think that is correct, but i do see other figures put out there. >> when did you do this transition team work? >> 2008, 2009, but it was clear already that the deficits and the pre-funding of the retiree health benefits and all sorts of issues already did not seen as serious as they do now. >> what conclusions did you and others -- i presume others were working with you on this? >> i was the head of a very small team. i had some assistance that helped out. >> what conclusions did you

reach then that might be relevant about a path forward for the postal service to avoid the kind of cataclysmic problems that have happened since? what conclusions did you reach that might be helpful for us today? >> i said that many of the things that appear in s-1789, i was pleased to see the bill should not the way it did. >> are you suggesting we plagiarized your work? >> i would flatter rise -- i would flatter myself, but i know better. i took a fairly -- has said the postal service has to do something to increase revenues, cut costs. there might need to be streamlining and right-sizing. i'm not sure the best way to do that. maybe it has to be considering

the frequency of delivery, considering shorter operating at hours a small post offices that serve towns that are smaller than they used to be. it was easy to put these adoptions out there. i am not sure i appreciated the options out there. i am not sure i appreciated -- options out there. i am not sure i appreciated the politics involved. i talk about innovation and talk about outsourcing and the web two point no opportunities for not just having passive information -- 2.0 opportunities for having a dialogue going back and forth, and i talked about a contest for kids to design stamps, and we see that going on in nasa with volunteers designing what goes on craters.

i did see quite a bit about maybe a hybrid now, savings accounts. >> talk about hybrid mail. what do you mean by that? >> by hybrid mail, i mean when the post office of origin scans the envelope from people that participate in this service and e-mails to the designated recipient an image of the front and at the back of the envelope, and let's say i am on vacation, or at home, but i'm a consultant and a road warrior and i open up my laptop and there is an e-mail from the postal service the says he'd have the following mail in your mailbox -- that says you have the following mail in your mailbox, and you can decide if you want us to send it to you in

its hard-copy form, or we can scan the contents inside of the envelope if you give us permission, and we have a high- tech security system, and e-mail you an electronic version of the content, and you will get that immediately wherever you are. or, we can throw it out. so, that is being experimented with he and switzerland. i did not updated -- with in switzerland. i have not updated my knowledge of how that works, and i am not advocating that for the u.s. postal service. in fact, it might be obsolete in the rapid changes of technology, but that is what i had in mind. >> i asked our staff director who has worked on these issues how that might relate to the concept of electronic

mailboxes, and my sense is that it does not. is that a concept that you thought about then, when you were doing your work? >> i certainly did not back then. there is still a great deal more that i would like to learn about electronic mailboxes. i do think there might be opportunities for the postal service to get into the business of identity creation and authentication services, with a number of passwords people suffer with and the opportunities for fraud are becoming serious issues in our society. the office of inspector general has produced a paper on this that i find quite interesting. i know less about t electronic magic about the electronic mailboxes i would like to. -- electronic mailboxes that i would like to.

>> you have an opportunity to be an expert. people would say where did he learn all of that? his wife. after the hearing. what are the provisions -- the me say it is one thing to pass legislation. my hope is the house will pass any bill, calling the postal bill, tested and suspension, a voice vote, and go to conference, and we will hammer something out. hopefully it is a better bill than the senate bill, and better than no bill. it is one thing to pass hopefully thoughtful legislation. give us an idea of how you would work with your colleagues if confirmed to put into action some of the ideas from our bill that you apparently considered three years ago. how would you work with your colleagues to put these ideas into action to further improve

the postal service's financial conditions? >> well, it's the legislation passes, it is then a matter of -- if the legislation passes, it is a matter of complementing it as rapidly as possible, and that is a challenge for a big organization. it seems the board's role is to ask tough questions, to try to urge the postal service to get on with the task at hand. if the legislation is considerably changed from what is in s-1789, maybe there will not be a chief innovative officer, maybe there will not be a requirement for a council in that case -- council. in that case, once i got more comfortable with my colleagues, i would say why do we not do this anyway? why do we need legislation to

heavy chief innovation officer? can that -- cannot be done on our own the in the postal service, and urge action on some of these things just because they are good ideas? it is a change, trying out some new service, then it seems to me you need to have careful market testing involved, and the legislation talks about those. it seems to me that you have to be careful about pilots, experimenting, and testing of new ideas whether it is for digital verification services, postal savings accounts, or whatever the item might be. fishing licenses with state governments -- we need to trial and error and learning. one of the challenges for the postal service, to be honest, is to have a culture of innovation and to feel free to

occasionally make mistakes because that is what happens as an entrepreneur. you learn by sometimes been wrong, pulling back, and trying something else. >> this is me an opportunity to inject something richard nixon said, " the only people that do not make mistakes are the people that do not do anything." he said a mouthful with respect to -- you said a mouthful with respect to an atmosphere that invites experimentation, in addition, creativity, in particular with respect to raising revenue, and does not threaten postal employees, managers and others to be innovative and creative. if there is a failure, hopefully not of any large scale or consequence, but there is failure or disappointment, that

is not the end of the world, particularly if there are five things that work to grow revenue or reduce the growth of the expenses. one of the big jobs that i think the board will have is to help create that environment for innovation and creativity, and not just to say we will do things the way we have always done it, and we will get to a sustainability position basically -- simply on the expense side. there is plenty that can and should be done on the expense side, but i think there is real potential of the revenue side and we have to pursue that with a lot of vigor. that is not going to be something we will impose on you, although there is strong language in the senate bill to encourage that, but the board needs to drive that. talk to us about the five-day as

opposed to the six-day delivery, please. >> it is sometimes frustrating when the magazine i subscribe to did not arrive on saturday, and especially if it is a holiday monday and i do not get it until tuesday, and there is a new one on the stand by friday. it is getting dated quickly, so i would hate to see saturday delivery eliminated, yet i have said this in an article that i wrote. i think the auction has to be kept on the table, that -- option has to be left on the table as a last resort to which it we are unable to balance the books and cover costs, then, at least, we should carefully look at whether there are real savings in all -- involved by eliminating saturday delivery. i would hate to see it come to

that. i would hate to see the service code down, and there is some risk that revenue and use of the postal service would go down. those are things they need to have the freedom to experiment with and learn about. it seems the public is ready to accept it if it is necessary. seven-out-of-10 in surveys said they would be ok with cutting out saturday delivery, but personally it is my great hope that through increases in productivity, increased revenue through new services and products, and through other forms of right-sizing, we could avoid that, but i am very happy the bill includes the possibility of getting there. we just have to be realistic if it comes to that. we may need to consider it. >> i have encouraged the letter

carriers, in their current leadership and previous their ship, to do what they tried to do a number of years ago -- leadership, to do what they try to do a number of years ago, to see if there's a way to sustained saturday delivery but do it in a different cost- benefit, or wage and compensation structure, in a way that allows us to continue saturday delivery in a way that is more cost effective. my hope is we will see serious efforts out of any legislation that we develop. talk to us about standards of delivery. we have been operating to date on one-to-three-day delivery, overnight delivery, but everything done within three

days within the custom -- continental u.s.. talk about the legislation and how it relates to mail processing centers. we have about 480 of them across the country. there is an interesting going to 325, and also some comments on the 33,000 post offices we have and an emphasis on trying to find a way we save money with the way we run our post offices, but at the same time provide a menu of options for more rural communities for mail service in their communities. >> these are tough issues. i respect the -- >> you know what? they were. i think we've come to a pretty good place. a lot of people who worked on this -- help from folks in the

unions, rank-and-file employees, management, customers, democrats, republicans -- at think we have come to a pretty good place. i think the postal service showed a fair amount of creativity, but your thoughts? >> i am comfortable with 1789's handling of rural post offices and the provisions for the reduced window hours, consolidations of two that are nearby, but maintaining access and service. perhaps the alleged postal offices or some alternative we at -- village postal offices or alternative outlets. it seems there is really there to maintain access for those that it is essential.

on the service standards, there is a relationship between how quickly mail has to get over night. it tested in a certain distance overnight, first-class mail -- if it has to get a certain distance, first-class mail, certain use of equipment is compressed into a smaller time frame and it has to do with the point and time of entry. there are a lot of variables in this one. it seems to me that a compromise is emerging that allows some processing centers to be consolidated, and a number of them reduced, and at the same time to maintain service standards. so, i am not a deep expert on these things, but from what i can gather reading the bill, that looks very positive to me. >> thank you.

for somebody that might be watching the hearing from some place across the country, what we have ended up doing is rather than saying to a community, where there are roughly 33,000 post offices across the country, and some of them, a lot of them have postmasters. they pay $50,000, $60,000 a year, and they might only sell $15,000, $20,000 of stamps per year. that is not a reliable business strategy for long. rather than closing post offices, what we have done it is agreed that if there are 10,000, 12,000 post offices where there is economic challenges, why do we not give a menu to the community? you might not have the post

office six days a week. we would like to have services least two hours a day. the person might -- the office might not need a postmaster. they could be encouraged to retire, have benefits, a pension, and come back and work two hours a day, four hours a day, and earned some money. for some that would be attractive, for others that would not. the other option is co-location with supermarkets or convenience stores, and another option is oral delivery -- rural delivery. yen when the stock for lunch, they can buy stamps and they could meet their letter carrier at that location. there are a bunch of different options. the idea is to say there is not one way.

one size does not fit all, but to provide the community with some options, then have a conversation and let the community is vote to see what options they like. but-by-mail is a great idea for states. we have a couple in oregon, washington, that are already doing that. some senators said to me from washington a couple of months ago -- at think it was oregon, or washington, where they had vote by mail and the presentation was in the low- 70's, and they're looking for maybe 80% turnout this time. that is terrific compared to places where it is barely 50%. there is an opportunity to do something more cost-effectively, and encouraging more people to vote, and provide a nice piece of business for the postal service. that might work.

those are the kinds of things we need to be thinking about. i have a question on pre-funding retiree health benefits. i think we have already heard from you on that, and i will give you a question in writing to explore more on that, -- at least one more. in the congress -- in the coming months, if congress and the administration are not able to come to agreement on postal reform legislation, the postal service will need to make tough decisions on how to preserve operations with a dwindling amount of cash. if you are confirmed, it will be put in your lap and a lot of the other governors. if you are confirmed, how would you direct postal management as the postal service seeks to keep the business running during this crisis that they would face? that we would face?

>> well, i think the post master general has made it clear that you have to set priorities, so the first priority is to deliver the mail. that is important to the nation's commerce, to our economy. it is not imaginable to think of what happened suddenly that stops. to do that, you have to pay peoples' salaries, suppliers, fuel for the vehicles, so those are the first priorities. there has already been a delay in paying the $5.5 billion pre- funding and no payment for the retirees' health benefits, and that could happen again with a $11 billion due in august and the rest by september 30. if those are delayed again,

workmen's compensation, i suppose that is further down the list and the payment of salaries. >> i just ask our staff, especially staff members were not here if they had questions they would like to see me ask, and have a bunch of them. we'll print goes out, then break for dinner. [laughter] now, we're not going to do that. the have anything else she would like to take away, or continue with -- anything else that you would like to add or take away, you nurture position? are you happy with what you have been able to put on the table? do you want to refine anything? >> i am excited about the and opportunity. i am impressed by the

seriousness of the challenges before the postal service, and i'm very hopeful that the house will produce a bill, it will go to conference, and something will happen before september 30 that will create some, you know, refunds, etc. some things will start happening that will give the postal service the flexibility it needs, and then it seems to me the job for the board, management, the whole postal service and the wonderful employees is to implement, and that is a big challenge in itself. it is nice to have flexibility, but you have to use it well. i would not be interested in this position if i were not optimistic that the solutions were within reach, but i look forward to talking with a lot of others in the industry because i know there are no silver bullets and we need to put together a creative package to do this, but

i think it can be done, and i am excited about it. thank you for the opportunity. >> we appreciate the president submitting your name to us and giving us an opportunity to consider that nomination. we appreciate very much your willingness to serve. i like to kid around a little bit, and we've done that some here today, but having said that the situation the postal service faces is dire and serious. we know that. there is hope in a hopeless world, and i think there is reason to be hopeful for the postal service, too, and i will say the legislation we passed this not solve all of the problems. it does not make the postal service viable or profitable forever, but it helps to get back in the right direction, and

it is something that can be improved upon and it needs to be. i know you served for a while with the national governors' association and head of the opportunity to call any number of governors. i was wondering, did you ever think that someday people would refer to you as governor? >> i did not. >> and you would not have to run for office, raised a dime, it is a baby or do any of that? [laughter] now people can call you governor, if you are confirmed, for the rest of your life. you did not have to setup a super pacs or any of that stuff. >> will you speak to my wife and my 12-year-old about this? >> you know that i will. i think that is it. i think the record will remain

open for our colleagues if they have extra statements they would like to submit for the record or questions they would like to ask of you. the deadline for doing that is at noon tomorrow. so, we expect that you might hear from some. with s to to respond promptly. with that having been said it is a rap, and this hearing is adjourned. thank you so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this weekend the nation's governors are gathering for the national governors' association annual meeting. live coverage will include a panel saturday morning on new strategies to lower medicaid costs, and then later a discussion about veterans welfare. sunday, a discussion on what states can do to support the entrepreneur. watch live coverage here on c- span. >> when you think about cyber

actors, but put them in five groups. nation states. cyber criminals. hackers. activists. terrorists. not all of those our nation states. when you think about deterrence theory, you are not talking about nation-on-nation deterrence theory. you have other non-nation state actors you have to consider, and in one of these attacks he might not know who is doing it -- who is attacking your systems? either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid, where your system's capabilities for a period of time. it does not matter who did it. you still lose that. you have to come up with a defensive strategy that solves that. >> watch national security agency director keith alexander address current cyber threat of-

the c-span video library. earlier today, vice president joe biden spoke of the naacp convention in houston one day after republican presidential candidate mitt romney addressed the association. the vice president called on members to support the president's reelection and outlined the differences between the president and former governor mitt romney on health care, voting rights, equal pay for women and education. before he spoke, president obama. on a video message. >> good morning, the naacp. i'm sorry i cannot be with you in person. i want to take a moment to think your board and president for the partnership formed with my administration, and everyone at the convention for coming together not just today, but every day, to bend the dark

ford, the moral universe towards justice. i stand on your shoulders. at the naacp, you always believe in the american promise, the idea than a matter who you are, what you look like or where you came from, america is the place where you can make it if you try. that is why you fought so hard for good jobs, a quality education, and a justice system that treats everybody fairly. that is why you helped make health care reform a reality and why you are fighting today because you know the mission is still not recovered from a recession, but reclaim the security some americans have lost. our goal cannot just be to put people back to work, although that is priority number one. we have to build an economy where everyone can have the confidence that their hard work will also pay off. that is what i believe. that is why as long as i have the honor as serving as your

president that i will wake up every day fighting as hard as i can for the big, hopeful, hard- working, optimistic america that we love, where we are looking out for the middle class, creating letters for people the world region willing to work hard to get into the middle class. that is my promise to you. if you keep standing with me, keep persevering like the naacp as always, i know we can arrive there together. thank you so much. i am proud of all that you do. we all send our deepest regards. [applause] ♪ [applause]

♪ you are a shining star no matter who you are ♪ [applause] >> naacp delegates, it is my great honor to introduce to you a friend of the naacp. [applause] at the age of 29, he became one of the youngest people ever elected to the united states senate.

our speaker commuted from washington to willingham, delaware, by train every day, and he was reelected to the senate six times. [applause] as a senator from delaware for 36 years, he has established himself as a leader of some of our nation's most important domestic and international challenges. now, serving as the 47th vice president biden of the united states, joe biden -- vice president of the united states, joe biden continues to provide leadership on the important issues facing our nation. [applause] of relevant interest to this audience, joe biden was a

standout high school athlete who participated in an anti- segregation sit-in at a wilmington theater. he is married to dr. g.o. -- jill biden, they have three children and five grandchildren. [applause] naacp block -- delegates, to join the in offering at a family welcome to the vice president of the united states of america, joseph r. biden. [applause] >> hello. thank you very much. you know what they say, flattery is ok as long as he did not

inhale. you keep this up i will start inhaling. it is good to be home, it is good to be back. adelson and gentlemen, madam chair, as we used to say that in the senate, to excuse a point of personal privilege, where is delaware ? hey, delaware! i'm a lifetime member of the undouble acp -- of the naacp. they brung me to the dnage. -- dance. i was educated, and i went to

the battle with mouse. you doing, how areyou doin man? back a longgo way. mouse got my back and a bunch of times. it is so good to be with you all. i want to thank you all for your leadership and for your friendship, and again, personally for your loyalty. it is not an exaggeration. were it not for the leadership of the naacp, the men and women who educated me when we would sit over in river right -- and reverend wright's churches.

remember, mouse, those days? i learned so much and i owe so much. la anddies and gentlemen, this is not about me. this is about another office. this is about the presidency. this is about -- [applause] more than any other office in the land, the presidency is about character, the character of your convictions, whether you put country above politics. from the very moment that barack obama took his hand off that bottled -- bible on that cold january day on the wall, he has done just that. he has put country first.

when the economy was about to go over the cliff, i watched him make some of the toughest decision to any president has had to make since franklin delano roosevelt. he saved the financial system of the nation, and prevented a worldwide depression. it was not a popular decision, but it was the central, and he was a lot press he was right to allow credit to flow again. he stepped up to rescue the automobile industry. it was not popular, but it was critical, saving jobs and creating 200 new jobs -- 200,000 new jobs. this is the man who made the call to go after osama bin laden. it was a bold decision.

a bold decision, with profound risks for our warriors as well as his presidency. but he made it and he made that decision on his own. bin laden is dead and america is more secure because of this man's decision. he passed affordable care act, a goal strives for by president started with teddy roosevelt. it required him to use up almost all of his political capital. he prevailed where no president had done before. he was right. he was right. he cut $100 billion from the federal debt over the next 10 years. he provided access to affordable health care to 30 million americans, 8 million black americans who would never

have had insurance. [applause] this is a man, this is a president who has the character of his convictions. at almost never since he has taken office, during this entire time, as the republican congress reached across the aisle to help. on the recovery act, which kept us from sliding further into depression, only three republican senators and not one house member voted for it. on the affordable care act, no republican in the senate and none in the house on the final vote. but it was not just on the big signature issues, it was on the easy come out obvious things where we got no cooperation. extending the payroll tax, only

seven republicans initially voted for it. lilly ledbetter equal pay, three republicans voted for it in the house. when we attempted to raise the debt limit to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states, not a single republican matt the responsibility of meeting that requirement. resulting in a negotiation that brought us to the brink of disaster, ultimately causing america's credit rating to be lowered for the first time. it was not until later that we learned this was a plan, a plan from the outset. according to a recent book, the author stated in a meeting the

night of inauguration, according to draper, republican leaders from paul ryan to eric cantor, mccarty is reported to have said if you act like you are a minority, you are on tuesday and minority. we have to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign. newt gingrich, who was also there, said, and he was prophetic, "will remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 or were senw." -- sewn." the single most important we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president.

not to get us out of this recession, not to promote jobs, not to do the things that needed to be done, but make barack obama a one-term president. and, folks, their discipline is amazing. they have never let up. but neither has my guy, neither has president barack obama. he has not given up. he continues to be driven by the character of his convictions, and, folks, in the end, that is what the presidency is all about, your character, your convictions, and one more important thing -- it is about your vision for the future of america.

and here, the candidate for president have fundamentally different visions for the future of this country. by the way, i think mitt romney is a fine family man. at least he is driven by what he believes. but the differences are so basic about how we view that teacher of america. let me give you a few examples. on education, we see education as central to the vision of how do we assure america's ascendancy throughout the 21st century. we see it as the most important criteria for minority children. we see education, if future where once again america has the highest percentage of college graduates in the world, a future where high school graduation rates are not a matter of what

neighborhood you come from, what your economic circumstances are, but a future where everyone has access to education beyond high school because six out of 10 jobs the coming decade are going to require more than a high- school diploma. a future where everyone can find a decent job, where quality, early education is available to our children, increasing exponentially the chances to succeed in school, where class sizes are small so kids can get personalized attention they need, where we demand more of our teachers and we treat them like they are professionals. high standards, and pay equal to other professions. look, education does not play a

central role in the romney republican vision of the future of america. it is on the back burner. it is not a priority. you doubt me? just look at the budget for the future. massive cuts in early education, the one thing all educators agree on is the important initiative to deal right up front with the achievement gap. elimination of the tuition tax credit for families, cuts in pell grant scholarships for children of low-income families, cuts in title one funding for lowest-performing schools, cuts of $2.7 billion, cuts in special education funding. in my view, backing away from the proposition we have held for years and years, that children should be educated to the degree to which they are educable.

cuts by $2.2 billion, cuts in job training. listen to what they say, when he says. he says the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps. tell that all those private schools. tell that all those parents. energy -- we envision a future where clean, energy represents an increasingly large share of energy consumed in america. we see a nation that breeds clear air, where cities are not put it, where asthma does not claimed the lives of african- american children four times greater than it does of other children because of the environment in which they live. romney sees a different energy future, where renewable energy

is not a priority, where romney's allies in the congress oppose any incentives to invest in clean energy, but insist on retaining a $4 billion tax cut for the oil industry, a tax cut even they acknowledge they do not need. women's rights -- we see an america where no women -- nobleman pays more for health care than any man -- no woman pays more for health care than any man in america, where women have access to quality child care, where women receive equal pay for equal work. we see a future where the barriers are removed for women and girls who want to participate in science, technology, engineering, and the math fields, where the violence against women act is not just a law, but a part of american

kutch -- culture, where the government does not make choices for women, where every woman has unfettered access to contraception and family planning if she desires it. in short, we see an america where our daughters have every opportunity our sons have. governor romney and his allies in the congress the different future for women in america. the governor is not sure what his position on the violence against women act pick he is not sure whether or not lilly lead law that we passed us good. planned parenthood, get rid of -- planned parenthood, get rid

of it. innovation and medical research, we see an america where hiv is a thing of the past, where infant mortality is drastically reduced. that is why we continue to invest in basic research, the national science foundation, the research universities -- romney sees a very different future, where he cuts funding for n.i.h. and the national science foundation. health care, we see a future where everyone has access to affordable health care, where seniors have access to prescription drugs at a lower cost, they have access to preventive care, making their lives more livable and reducing costs. where insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a pre-

existing condition, where there are no limits on insurance policies, where children can stay with their parents on their policy until they are 26, where medicare is guaranteed and medicaid is expand it. expand -- expanded. were no americans face the process of -- face up possibility of bankruptcy because they get sick. romney's allies seek health- care a different way. controlled by the insurance companies, where pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, where coverage can be taken away to get sick or hit your limit, where medicare is voucherized, 19 million people are cut off from medicaid, where millions of

people will have to wait another generation before they can get a decent chance at health care. on the tax system, we see a system where everybody pays their fair share. where the middle class tax cut is maintained and where no one making a million dollars a year or more pays a lower percentage than middle-class or lower class families, where the college tuition tax credit is made permanent, where the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are preserved, where everybody, and i mean everyone, as skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker. the tax code that governor romney and his allies

envision continue to be skewed help the very wealthy. $530 billion of that tax cut over the next 10 years going to just 120,000 households in america. while we cut and the disarrayed all these other programs, while the debt continues to climb. he proposes a $1.60 trillion tax cut and the people who can qualify are the people who make only $1 million or more. he eliminates college tuition tax credits, the board income tax credit, and the child tax cut it are cut. the result, 2.2 million african- american working families will see a tax increase if he succeeds. that is a fact.

on foreign policy, we see a future where we, the president and i and the democratic party cannot see a future where american leads by the power of example as well as the example of its power. where the democracies of the world join to share the burden of maintaining world peace, where we continue to reduce nuclear arms around the world, where responsibility is turned over to the afghans and american troops can start to come home. governor romney and his allies see a different future for america's involvement in the that still has combat troops in iraq. remember, he criticized us for bringing them home?

where we set no date for leaving afghanistan, we stay, and he does not say how long. where the new start treaty with russia endorsed by every former secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisers, where he said he would have voted against it, and i suspect means where he would abandon its. where russia is it viewed in his mind as the greatest geopolitical threat america faces. we are in the future, where we once decide to go it alone. this guy's vision of american foreign policy is mired in the cold war, and the cold war is over. d-civil rights, your r'aison

, your reason for existence, remember what this organization is all about. it was about the franchise, the right to vote, because when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things. [cheers] and we, the president and i, and all of us, we see a future where those rights are expanded, not diminished, where racial profiling is a thing of the past, where access to the ballot is expanded and unencumbered,

where there are no distinctions made on the basis of race or access to housing and lending. did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years. we went through these battles. i did not think we would be back. i remember working with republicans, republicans, and by the way, this ain't your father's republican party. remember? remember working with republicans on motor voter, on expanding the franchise on early

voting, on voting by mail. some of these or republican ideas. but this is not the republican party view today, nor romney's. they see a different feature, where voting is not easier, where the justice department is prohibited from challenging those efforts to suppress vote. but, i know you know, but i am not sure -- the house of representatives voted affirmatively to prevent the justice department from even investigating whether or not there was voter suppression? folks, there is a lot more to say, but this is preaching to

the acquirechoir. let me close, my friends, by saying i want you -- i mean this sincerely -- close your eyes and imagine, imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork. imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as had of the civil rights division or those other incredibly important positions at justice. imagine, and i mean this to me is one of the most critical issues in this election. imagine what the supreme court will look like after four years

of a romney presidency. folks, this election in my view is a fight for the heart and soul of america. [applause] these guys just have a fundamentally different view. the best way to sum up the president's view, my view, and i think your view, is we see an america where, in the words of the scripture, what you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me. as president barack obama says, we are our brother's keeper, we are our sisters cubic, which have an obligation that at the outset, as i said, i believe this election will come down to character, conviction, and

vision, and it will not surprise you, and i do not think it is even a close call. so it is time for the naacp to do what has always done, what it did for me, in delaware, to aspire -- to inspire a generation, stand our ground, and make a hard vision for america. god bless you all, and may god bless our troops. thank you. thank you. >> mitt romney spoke to the naacp yesterday, and you can see that in our video library at c- span.org. today "the boston globe" reported that mitt romney was the head of bain capital years later than he's admitted.

the focus tomorrow at the national governor's position -- association meeting focuses on education. all of it live on c-span picket july on c-span rendell, historic supreme court arguments focusing on election issues. >> they refer to us as being an anomaly independent, professionally run, and we think these are all codeword for saying we are effected. because we are effected, our speech ought to be choked off. >> saturday, the federal ncpac.on commission v. pcpa

this weekend, growing up in the shadows and secrets of the rocky flats nuclear weapons facility. the author looks at the effects on the people and the environment, and sunday, the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> carter in her opinion was mcgovern with a magnolia accent. she saw the dominoes start the fall during this time, and by 1979, she was in full-fledged opposition to carter where she saul -- where she saw appeasement, and particularly crucial in this respect in 1979, she saw the fall of the shah and somoza lacerating experiences for people like her. >> the woman behind the reagan

cold war doctrine. then life since leaving the military by anthony swofford. this weekend. >> when you realize these remnants of armies were not coming to his aid, but tried to a scraped -- to escape from the west, he realized that it would come to an end and was only question of suicide. >> an historian on the second world war. >> the main objective not to be captured alive by the russians, he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage. he was determined to die. eva braun was determined to die with him.

>> the justice department announced that wells fargo has agreed to pay $175 million to settle packages since about unfair lending practices to african-americans and hispanics. it is the second-largest their lending settlement. james cole briefed reporters about the details of the summit earlier today. >> we're here to announce the latest step forward and our efforts to protect american consumers, to ensure fair treatment for struggling or worse, and to seek justice and recover losses for victims of discriminatory lending practices. today the the part of justice reached a significant settlement, totaling at least $175 million which wells fargo

bank, the nation's largest originator all of home mortgages. this constitutes the second largest their lending settlement ever reached by the department, and it will result the government's allegations that from 2004 through 2009 wells fargo engaged in discriminatory lending practices against qualified african-american and hispanic or worse, violating the equal credit opportunity act and the fair housing act. these activities took place in at least 82 geographic markets and across 36 states and the district of columbia. as a result of the investigations conducted by the department of justice and the treasury department's, office of comptroller of the currency, systematic discrimination was discovered in wells fargo's lending practices. this resulted in more than 34,000 african-american and hispanic wholesale our worst

play -- paying an increased rate for loans simply did to the color of their skin. this includes approximately 4000 african-american and hispanic wholesale are worse who were steered into subprime mortgages. under the terms of the settlement filed today, these victims will be able to receive the needed relief aid to surf. as part of the agreement, which is subject to u.s. district court approval, wells fargo will provide $125 billion in compensation to the wholesale or worse who were victimized by a widespread practice of charging higher fees and rates to non-wet bar restrict the bank will provide another $50 million in direct payments for a downpayment assistance to residents and a metropolitan areas where the bank's discriminatory practices had a significant impact. in addition they have agreed to a injunctive relief, monitoring, and an internal review of its retail mortgage

lending practices with an additional compensation for minority borrowers who received subprime loans from its retail division while white borrowers with the same profiles were offered prime loans. the action makes clear we will hold a financial institutions accountable, including some of the nation's largest, for lending discrimination. an applicant plus credit worthiness and not the color of their skin should determine what borrowers pay and what borers qualify for loans. with today's settlement, the federal government will ensure african-american and hispanic borrowers discriminated against will be entitled to compensation and communities hit hard by this crisis will have the opportunity to access home ownership. put simply, there is no place for discriminatory lending in the marketplace, and it will not be tolerated by this department

of justice. in fact, today's summit marks the second time in seven months that the department has taken action to bring relief to poor workers who were steered into subprime loans based on race or national origin. it underscores our determination to work closely with law enforcement allies and partners to hold lenders accountable for unfair and unlawful practices wherever and whenever they might occur. in recent years, this commitment has led the department and specifically the civil rights division's fair lending unit to aggressively combat bias, discrimination, and work to the score confidence in lending markets. since its establishment, less than 18 months ago, the fair lending unit has filed a result for a record number of fair lending matters. we're seeing an unmistakable message -- that this department

of justice will use every authority, cool, and resources at our disposal to ensure fair access to credit for all, to enforce the central consumer protections, and to safeguard the rights and the best interests of every american. thanks to our and decorated efforts, the critical intra agency partnerships we have strengthened with banking regulatory agencies and initiatives such as the financial fraud enforcement task force, which can all be proud of the results we have obtained and the progress that is currently underway. there is no question that we stand poised to take this worked the next level. i want to thank every support staffer, every investigator, and every attorney from the department of justice, the illinois attorney general's office, under the leadership of attorney general madigan, and the office of the attorney general for the district of columbia, and the comptroller of

the currency, who initiated this investigation before referring it to the department in 2010. it was their efforts that brought about the settlement and a today's announcement possible. i would like to acknowledge wells fargo's corp. in reaching this agreement and its commitment to correcting by implementing stronger lending policies and controls to ensure such unacceptable behavior does not occur again. i would like to turn things over to another key leader in this work, my good friend, perhaps, who will provide additional details. >> thank you. i appreciate your leadership in this and so many other matters. it is an honor to be here to discuss the department's settlement with wells fargo for steering and pricing discrimination in its wholesale lending. i am honored to be joined by my friend, the attorney general for

the only -- forked illinois, who has been a tireless champion for the people of illinois. i would like to thank the attorney general of the district of columbia. he is unable to be here today, but he has spent an invaluable part. i would like to abolish the critical contributions of the office of the comptroller of the currency. mr. curry is here with us today, and they have an excellent partner, their work is essential to the effective enforcement of our fair lending law. at the core of the plant is a simple story -- if you are african-american or latino, you're more likely to pay more for your mortgage loan even though you were qualified and deserve better treatment. this is a case about real people, african-american and

latinos, who suffered real hard as a result of wells fargo's discriminatory lending practices brick is about the 80-year-old african-american resident in the baltimore area with a 714 credit score and a rock-solid file received a subprime loans instead of a prime month, and was not told she may have qualified for a prime loans with better terms tricked by the time she realized she had an adjustable rate mortgage, and not the fixed-rate mortgage. it was too late. the damage was done. this is also about communities such as the one in the city of chicago, we visited last year, warehouse after haouse boarded up. today, the settlement is the second largest fair lending settlement in the history of the department. it shows while we will investigate been the practice is for discriminatory and illegal conduct, we will work with

responsible lenders like wells who are willing to take necessary steps to ensure equal credit opportunity for all. i have spent considerable time in recent weeks with a number of senior leaders at wells. we have had open discussions. we have agreed to disagree. in the and we were able to reach this resolution. i want to commend them for taking meaningful action to implement strong fair lending policies to ensure that discrimination is absent from their current and future lending, even before they knew the full results of our investigation picket our investigation began in 2009, and we then receipt referral in 2010 from the occ. the department plus lawsuit is the culmination of this investigation of their lending practices, which included reviewed up more than 2.7

million wells fargo loans are originated between 2004 and 2009. the. the senate is important because it was during this period that the subprime boom, where it the most harmful practices place. wells fargo discriminated by steering 4000 african-american and latino wholesale bar wars -- borrowers into subprime loans. people with similar qualifications should be treated similarly, and they should be judged by the content of their credit worthiness and not the color of their skin. our investigation revealed african-american bor coppsrowers -- borrowers were more than three times likely to be placed in a subprime loans.

latinos were almost two times likely to be placed in a subprime loans than similarly qualified white applicants. the claim alleges kopp wells fargo discriminated by charging 30,000 african-american and latino wholesale borrowers higher fees and rates than non- hispanic white are worse because of their race and national origin. this meant an african-american wholesale customer in the chicago area in 2007 seeking a $300,000 loan pay on average to thousand $937 more in fees than a similarly qualified white applicant. these bees were not based on

subjective factors relating to credit risk. they amounted to a racial surtax. orrower pay more than similarly qualified white applicant. the racial surtax for the african americans into thousand seven was $3,657. the african american and latino borrowers had no idea they could have gotten a better deal, no idea that white people would pay less. that is discrimination with a smile. minority customers in 82 geographic markets across 36 states and the district of victims of these discriminatory practices. of the roughly 40 -- 34,000 victims identified, roughly half

are latina and half are african- american. those who were steered into subprime loans pay on average tens of thousands more for their loans and were subject to prepayment penalties, foreclosure, and economic and emotional stress that accompanies such activity. these effects can be devastating and can last for years, and the occ in a survey last year and found as of june 30, 2009, 20% of subprime loans nationwide are seriously delinquent or in foreclosure compared to 5.5% of prime loans. the decision to place someone in a private versus subprime product can have enormous consequences. the impact to a person's credit can be far reaching. the collateral damage the whole

communities when this occurs deprive those communities of equal opportunity. this is why the proposed consent order we filed addresses but the individual harm and the community harmed. the summit will provide $125 million in compensation to approximately 34,000 qualified wholesale borrowers who were charged higher prices or receive subprime loans. they will be compensated for the harm they experienced. crime-qualified borrowers experienced greater harm, and their compensation will be higher than the compensation for price victims treat this case is not about individuals and families who are victims of discrimination. it is about communities, and under the terms, wells fargo has

agreed to commit an additional $50 million in q. many the improvement programs based on its successful program which is designed to assist communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. we identified a areas that receive this important investment. metropolitan washington, d.c., chicago, baltimore, philadelphia, the oakland-san francisco bay area, new york city, cleveland, and riverside, san bernard mediacom and riverside california. ere e are areas that work impacted by these practices. in addition, wells fargo has agreed to conduct a review of a subset of its loans during the period of 2004 to 2008 to

identify any prime qualified african-american or latino retail customer who was improperly placed in a subprime loans. wells fargo will compensate them in an amount similar to the amounts paid to them who received improperly, subprime loans, from the wholesale division. all amounts paid to retail customers will be in addition to the $125 million in relief for the wholesale customers. while the government must be a credible deterrent to those who would choose to violate our laws, the best policing is that that comes from within. the success of thoughtful and copper has of compliance work is reflected in the fact the vast majority of lenders across the united states are not violating the law. that is why i believe wells fargo should be commended for implementing strong fair-lending

policies and agreeing to conduct a review of its retail lending for the period during the mortgage boom. i have been impressed with their leadership and believe we will continue to work in a collaborative fashion because we have a shared interest in ensuring equal credit opportunity for everyone. the deputy attorney general described the important accomplishments of the fair lending unit and the task force, and we will continue these efforts to ensure those harmed by conduct during the mortgage boom get compensated, and we will investigate and where corporate bring enforcement action to confront emerging discriminatory practices, or longstanding practices in the credit markets. we will aggressively enforce the law to protect the rights of all who face discrimination to ensure fair and equal access to credit for all, as the law requires root lastly, but certainly not least, i want to commend our dedicated team of

attorneys, economists, investigators, and staff as well as our sister agencies who are here today and had been involved to ensure equal opportunity to the american dream. our career stat is remarkable, and i am fortunate to be in a position of assistant attorney general of the department of justice. i have mentioned the role of the occ and the attorney general, and i want to say thank you to the u.s. attorney's from all over the country who offered and valuable assistance in this case. if we had not been able to resolve this, it would have been a team effort with attorneys offices and over 50 jurisdiction, and we will continue to use every tool in our arsenal to insure people have equal credit opportunity across this country. with that, i will turn the podium over to the distinguished attorney general

of illinois, lisa madigan. >> good morning. i am pleased to announce i am drawing the justice department settlement and resolution of a fair lending lawsuit i filed against wells fargo three years ago, for illegally discriminating against thousands of illinois borrowers of color. this sends a clear message, that the fair lending laws of this nation and the individual states will be and must be vigorously enforced. the reality is that discriminatory lending is not some shameful relic from our distant past six as alleged in a wells fargo was making decisions based on the color of borrowers' skin as recently as five years ago. if you were a african-american or latino, your chances of being

sold a high-cost loans were greater than those of a white that had as comparable credit score. these were vastly more likely to be sold as subprime wells fargo loan than were white boro rowers. reza disparities cannot be explained away by chance or marketplace demand or lack of sophistication. rather, the fact that a disproportionate numbers of minority borrowers was the direct result of wells fargo's design. both policies and practices were illegal, and help to generate best to destroy a generation of

wealth in the chicago area and trepidation. the settlement will not roll back the clock. it will not undo the consequences of the misconduct on african-american and latino families in their once-vibrant neighborhoods, but it is a significant step forward. in our ongoing efforts to hold , just as antable portly, the settlement affirms the basic american telnet a person's race should never determine his or her access to affordable credit and to a better future. i want to thank the attorneys from the illinois attorney general's office for working diligently on this lawsuit for over the last three years. i want to commend deputy attorney general cold for the

hard work in crafting this summit. thank you. let me turn the podium over to the comptroller of the currency, tom curry. >> thank you. the office is committed to ensuring that banks and federal savings associations provide fair access to credit and treat every customer fairly. every person who applies for an luncheon be evaluated the basis of objective credit factors and not the color of their skin. the practice of steering minority borrowers it to higher priced subprime loans is illegal and the occ is committed to eradicating these practices. the action being announced today should send a message to every institution that lending discrimination in all its forms will not be tolerated. this case is an example of

injured-agency cooperation that represents government at its best. a walkable agencies, working together for the benefit of the citizens we all serve. began in 2004k when we started and the biggest asian when we started an investigation and the baltimore- washington area. which continued to work with the department throughout. i would like to commend everyone knew participated in negotiating the consent order. they put the public first every step of the way. i am pleased the examiners, economists, and enforcement attorneys played a role in this action, and i believe remedies contained in the order bring this matter to an appropriate conclusion. thank you. excuse me, to correct, 2009 our

investigation. thank you. >> time for any questions? >> for the justice department, if the evidence here is a strong there was a racial surtax, why not pursue this case and settle it? are there any states that are not part of this agreement? >> as to your first question, there are real people affected, and we were able to reach a resolution with wells to provide assistance to people. when you have protected litigation that could take years, there is mutual litigation risk, and our goal is to help people and to come to a resolution that can in fact help in short equal credit opportunity period i am

appreciative of the collaborative spirit that wells brought to the table. we had moments where we disagree strongly, but we came together because we have that shared interest rate equal opportunity for everyone and moving forward to ensure corporate policies are in place. your second question, there were other matters that wells had involving fair lending issues. you heard about illinois. there was a matter involving baltimore, and there will be an announcement later today regarding that matter as well. finally, the state of pennsylvania, the pennsylvania human relations commission has a matter with wells, and that has been resolved as part of this global resolution. it is a good day for american homeowners and american would-be homeowners who can benefit from this. >> wells blames mortgage brokers

for this. they say it is their fault. how do you respond to that? what kind of time frame do you anticipate that mediation will get on? >> wells is responsible, not just wells, but any lender, who has a wholesale and/or a retail arm, is responsible for the conduct of people working under their supervision. the complaint alleges that individuals, originators, wholesale or retail, were given discretion that is not monitored, to go beyond the terms and conditions that were based on objective indicia of a person po's credit worthiness.

this discretion in this case has resulted in african-american and latinos being victims of discrimination. that is why bother you have a wholesale prices or a retail practice, you have an obligation when you are working with and directing originators to ensure you are doing so in a manner that complies with fair-lending law. their second question, there will be administrator in this settlement agreement, and as i and the stand, in the countrywide case, where on track to meet the deadline that was set forth in that case. i am confident we will meet the deadlines here. wells has been very responsive. the consent decree calls for the appointment of an administrator. that has not been done yet because we want to make sure there is an appropriate selection process. we had a lot of experience in this, and i appreciate the need for people to get relief as soon

as possible, but we need to make sure we have an corporate process for identifying them. >> is there a time frame? >> i want to say within the next six to 12 months, the time frame put forth in the agreement. >> first for the justice department, it sounds like the case, you're talking about the roles of brokers. did you find evidence brokers were involved, with intentional discrimination? for the comptroller, this referral came in 2010, before your tenure, but are you making fair lending referrals a particular priority of your tenure? >> we do not lead legal theories in the complaints we file. the alleged that the conduct

constituted discrimination. you will see in there in the complaint that is filed, there are allegations that the unfettered discretion and insufficiently monitored discretion resulted in a discriminatory effect on individuals, and you will see allegations that a lot of the internal auditing process that was in place at wells, including a process known as a dare a paper filter, that was designed to ensure that qualified people were placed in the appropriate product, was not working. you will see those allegations in that complaint. we do not plead specific or intentional discrimination. we are not required to. >> with respect to how long the occ has been dealing with fair lending cases, fair lending is not onl