illegal, but also as a bad banking practice. in terms of fair lending, we have had a long standing practice that goes way back prior to my becoming comptroller of referringinstancs of the fair lending act. >> this is a continuation of a longstanding practice and tradition at the comptroller's office and an example of unsafe banking practices to this extent that an institution is engaging in illegal conduct. >> with this settlement, we are taking action against the two biggest players. what about the other investigations you have on going? >> we have other investigations pending but i cannot comment on those active investigations. >> we settle the case recently with suntrust which is now the third largest fair lending

supplement we have reached. that was $21 million and pricing discrimination. >> it looks like the supplement has kicked down the road the question of the retail arm. could you explain more the status of what you think happened there and what they say happened and how you will resolve that aspect? >> the question relating to where we are going from here on the retail side. the consent decree has provisions relating to a process that we will be undertaking jointly with wells fargo as part of the internal compliance monitoring. it is designed to look at the time frame of 2004-2008 and determine whether or not there are retail customers who are african-americans who were victims and not treated in a similar fashion to similarly qualified non-minority

applicants. we have agreed on a basic methodology to do that. we can do it in short order. they have agreed to compensate victims we identify through this process. i expect there will be victims identified, somewhere around 4000 is my expectation. but we do not know at this point. we will do the process and see where this process leads us. >> the term the deputy attorney general used is at least $175 million. >> you were there on monday wondering how you think your attorneys are doing. can you explain our summarize why this case is so important? >> the case is pending and it is really inappropriate for me to

comment during a pending case. our pleadings will continue to do the talking for us. it is my understanding closing arguments will occur tomorrow and the case will be submitted to the court. we will continue to vigorously enforce section 5 and other provisions of the voting rights act. >> why did you bring the case in the first case? >> we fought our objection with the state of texas, we concluded that they had not met their burden of establishing the absence of discriminatory purpose and discriminatory intent. that is what the trial is about. the burden is on the state. we are presenting our case and the state is presenting bears. the intervenors are presenting bears and the court will soon speak on this issue. >> one more question. >> there have been reports in the last month or so that government talks are speeding up with regards to the gulf of mexico oil spill of 2010.

can you characterize where those talks are? >> short answer, i cannot. it is a matter that is currently in litigation under investigation and as i am sure you are used to covering the justice department, we do not comment on matters under investigation or in litigation. >> [inaudible] >> he has, indicating it is under investigation and litigation. >> it is under investigation and litigation. [laughter] >> thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> when you think about it, let's put it into five groups. nation states, cyber criminals,

hackers, terrorists. not all of those are nation states. when you think about deterrence theory, you're not talking about his nation on asian. -- nation on nation. in one of these attacks, you may 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 or your system's capabilities for a period of time. so you have to come up with a defensive strategy that solves that. >> watch national security agency director general keith alexander assess current and future cyber threats online at the c-span video library. >> when you realize that these

armies were not coming to evade, they were trying to escape to the west, that is when he collapsed when he realized it was come -- it would come to end. >> historian antony beevor from adolph hitler's rise to power to his dark final days. >> he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage and being ridiculed. so he was determined to die. >> more with antonuy beevor sunday at 8:00 on "q &a." >> vice-president joe biden spoke at the annual convention of the naacp today. you can see that in its entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. here is some of what he had to

say today. >> remember what this at its core was all about -- by this organization at its core was all about. it was about the franchise. it was about the right to vote. when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things. [applause] 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. [applause] where access to the ballot is expanded and unencumbered. [applause] where there are no distinctions made on the basis of race or gender in access to housing and

lending. [applause] and so much more. did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the judiciary committee for almost 17 years. we have been through these battles. i did not think. i did not think we would be back. i remember working with republicans, and by the way, this ain't your father's republican party. [applause] remember working with republicans on motor voter, on expanding the franchise on early voting. on voting by mail. some of these were republican ideas.

but this is not the republican party view today nor romney's. they see a different future where voting is made harder, not easier. for the justice department is even prohibited from challenging any of those efforts to suppress votes. i know you know, but i am not sure everybody does -- the republicans averted -- voted affirmatively to prevent the justice department from investigating whether or not there was a voter suppression. folks, there is a lot more to say but this is preaching to the choir. [applause] let me close my friends.

audience: no1 ! >> i mean this sincerely. close your eyes and imagine. imagine what the money justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser is robert bork. at matte and the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as attorney general and the head of the civil-rights division are those other incredibly important positions of justice. imagine and i mean this. 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 mitt romney presidency. election in my view

is a fight for the heart and soul of america. [applause] >> when you think about cyber actors, let's put them in five groups. you have an asian states, cyber criminals, hackers, -- you have nation states, cyber criminals, hackers. not all of those are nation states. you have other non nation state actors you have to consider. in one of these attacks, you may not know who is doing it. who was attacking your system. either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector or the power grid or 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. >> he assesses current and future cyber threats online at the c-span video library. this weekend on "book tv," growing up in the nuclear weaponry facility from a full body burden. the effects on the environment and the people, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and sunday on afterwards, peter collier on the life of jeanne kirkpatrick. >> carter in her opinion was governed with a monilia accent. she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, she was a full-fledged -- in full fledged opposition to carter. crucial in this respect in 1979, she saw the fall of the shah and

nicaragua and lacerating experiences for her and people like curt. >> the political woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine, sunday at 9:00. at 10:00, marine sniper and author antony swofford on life since living -- leaving the military. this weekend on c-span to. to out to lie on c-span radio, historic supreme court oral arguments focusing -- throughout on c-span radio, historic supreme court or zeral arguments. >> these are code words for saying we are affected. and that because we are effective, our speech ought to be shut off. >> from 1985, the federal election commission at 6:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span radio at 90.1 fm. online at c-span radio.org. next, a forum on oil production and politics with a panel of energy executives, industry analysts and government officials. this portion of the of that from the new america foundation is just over an hour. >> the panel will now [inaudible] is the sound on? all right. the panel now is going to presume that the age of oil independence does materialize and look not at the energy location but the geopolitical implications of shoving all

those millions of barrels of oil a surplus on to the global market. the moderator is susan glasser who is the editor in chief of foreign-policy magazine. >> thank you. thank you everyone. can you hear me now? no? how about this. here we go. we have a cast of thousands as you can see. the good news is no opening statements. this is a terrific opportunity to have a conversation about -- that all of us are looking for to having which is what are we supposed to make of it. let's not throw more numbers everybody right now for the purposes of this discussion. let's take as a given the idea that this new age of relative north american oil and gas abundance is upon us. let's start to really unpack

what are the geopolitical implications of that. it is obvious the speculation but that is great. that is a washington sports that we xl at. in makes for a good conversation. this is an all-star cast. i will not slow it down with long introductions. but we do have the director of the council on foreign relations program on security and climate change, michael levi . ed morse, the managing director and head of global commodities research at city group. edward chow, a senior fellow at -- i am so sorry. robin west, the chairman and ceo of pcf energy.

edward chow and john hofmeister, founder and ceo of citizens for affordable energy. i cannot think of a better and more distinguished group to walk us through what some of the consequences are. and where we agree and probably disagree about some of those consequences. i will jump right in here. ed morse, he said recently this new age of abundance in north america beckons to make north america look like the new middle east. maybe you can start as off with what you're toure -- your tour of the geopolitical horizon looks like when all of this oil and gas comes on line. >> i know you do not want numbers but i will have to give some. the u.s. has a deficit of 3% of gdp.

you can think a bunch of different pictures of the one of them you cannot avoid, the deficit will no longer be a significant issue if this occurs. it has been argued that the current account deficit and protection of the dollar has been one of the biggest -- of american foreign policy. we would be freed of the shackles of that. if nothing else, looking to a world where the dollar would likely be maintained for long amount of time. the other thing that comes as a consequence of not having the current account deficit impact is we can have a better value based foreign policy. we are no longer going to be cowed telling to fuel monarchs whose oil supply lines are

critically important to other aspects of foreign policy. i know others will get into other areas but these strike me as too obvious places were energy independence makes a big difference. >> i want to survey the group on whether they agree fully that we won the lockerbie california telling to dictators anymore. -- that we will not be cow- tailing to dictators anymore. talked-about america becoming perhaps the world's top producer again. what did you mean by that? >> this changed our perception of the world and our role in it. i think from an energy standpoint, it is important that -- to include canada and the united states. you then have the u.s. as self-

sufficient. energy independence is a dangerous term. if we are self-sufficient, several things happen. there is tremendous change of crude flows. west african group, middle east crude is already moving more to asia and will move more. asian countries will be much more focused and influential on those parts of the world. i was asked by a senior diplomat from the middle east last week, do you think the american people will support 100,000 troops being sent to kuwait and years from now to protect oil? i said i not think so. i think this is a tremendous challenge for the military. ed alluded to it, this was a

tremendous private sector free- market success in a period a stupendous market failures in other sectors. the federal government had no role in this. 95% of the resources were on state and private land. it was a complete surprise to everybody but it was given by independent companies being very innovative, responding to higher prices. people forget there were brown- outs in 2005. there were 1 million people on the brooklyn bridge from gas brown outs in 2005. it was a big crisis. prices were high. if you look at some much energy policy, and what the politicians feel that energy -- a think

politicians believe that energy policy is too important to be left to the market. i think markets were pretty well. people have overlooked that part of the narrative of the united states going back to the 1970's was that we were an energy clinton. -- energy glutton. we were wasteful and spoiled. the president-elect is a 4% of the population and we consume 20% of the energy but the u.s. economy is roughly 20% of the global economy. that is about right. population is a demographic, not an economic input. the fact is the full narrative of the u.s. in the world and the selfish energy glutton, that

will change as well. this is on the scale of the berlin wall. the was a book written after that came down called "the end of history" which was completely wrong. >> maybe it was just ahead of its time. >> way ahead. but the fact is a lot of places in the world, there are tremendous decline rates. the notion that " -- that there will not be tightness in global oil markets, i think there will be. certain technologies may not work because gas prices are so low. i think it isn't over. this is part of a continuing saga. >> of what to bring in john. he talked about the role of private companies. 2005-2008 was when you were sitting from an interesting

vantage point. how would it look if you were sitting there today in terms of your role as not only head of a company but as a geopolitical czar. how has the landscape changed from when you were leading an oil company? >> my last advice to the board of directors when i retired from shell in 2008 was to spare capital away from the united states because the united states was so confused on energy policy going forward that government had taken on not just in the current administration but the entire -- prior administrations, the role of disabler rather than in a blur. government was the primary enablers of the great expansion of the economy that occurred in the per se -- post will war ii -- post world war ii era. until the federal government

comes to grips with whether it will be the in daimler of prosperity or the -- will be the enabler of prosperity or the disabler, if i am heading an american oil company looking at use of capital in america, i would be very careful and selective. there are so many american companies out there, however, that have huge capacity and the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well but trees don't grow to the sky. we learn that a long time ago. all the prospective growth in domestic energy supply could be achievable but it also could not be achievable depending on the kind of map policies we will set at the governmental level. market only has so much strength in the private landholders and

state permits have enabled what we have achieved today. we could do so much more. we really could do so much more. not only in oil and natural gas production but in substituting natural gas as a transportation fuel in the internal combustion engine by making neff -- ethanol from natural gas. we could more rapidly display -- change some of the fuels we are using. at the same time, we open up assets that we have. here is the limitation that we should not forget -- the oil and gas industry today has 100,000 job openings. we do not have an immigration policy that works. 100,000 jobs going empty which would otherwise accelerate more activity in the oil and gas field. and an educational system that is not bringing forward and to

give his did as necessary to quit the companies with the numbers of graduates there going to need going forward. so it is human resource that matter as well. i spent monday in texas and tuesday in louisiana and everyone i talked to --cannot find machinists, truck drivers, people hubble passed the drug test, skilled offshore workers, engineers. can't. this is a limitation we ought to be worried about as a nation. there are other systems and institutions in the country that have to help this process. >> i want to quickly take this outside the u.s. for a second and ask edward chow, what about the rising countries and the demand from china and india, brazil obviously is a producer , russia.

how does the rise scramble what our assumptions are about the relative political weight of those countries. if they are looking at the u.s. in a different way? are we being overly optimistic thinking it gives us a stronger hand? >> i think it changes things. i am not sure it always changes things the way we hope or expect them to be changed. in terms of energy investment around the world, in the time of plenty which is what we are assuming, it would take a zero sum game nature of the conversation out of the equation. we have mixed feelings about chinese energy investments of around the world and if there was not a concern over the lack of supply here in the united states, maybe that concern will dissipate.

we have already seen this. we have not noticed it at this point. which is the interesting part. the amount of chinese investments in north america has not raised the kind of concern that the purchase by chevron did when chinese oil companies were interested. we have already seen a much more relaxed attitude towards china's investments abroad and india will be following suit very soon. they are the incremental demand centers of the world now, not america in this time of plenty. their economy will continue to grow at two or three times our natural growth rate. so it takes away that problem which from a geopolitical standpoint i think is helping.

-- healthy. you told me in the hallway that i should try to disagree with someone. [laughter] i will do my best. to probe the idea of whether we will be less concerned about the oil and whether it is true or not that america will no longer be sending troops in kuwait or anywhere else because we have become or will become more energy self-sufficient. middle eastern oil and gas is important to the rest of the world and our economies are intimately linked to the rest of the world. there is only one global power that can secure gas supply today, rightly or wrongly. we therefore going -- are going to relinquish that role.

we therefore are going to cooperate with others in terms of the global response -- responsibility of making sure the global economy is also healthy and not just our own domestic economy. i am not so sure. i would like to probe with that notion. clearly this will not happen overnight. there will be a transition period will that change the thinking on washington's part about a blue water chinese navy or in the navy? -- or india navy? it needs to be discussed more. >> michael, i definitely want to bring you in here. many of my facts have come from his terrific piece in the new issue of for policy magazine. urges us to think about the american energy boom. you have brought a note of

questioning to the conversation about how much does a new moment of energy plenty translate into a moment of more political independence from the middle east? that is what everybody would like in terms of breathing a sigh of relief but is that really around the corner? >> it is striking listening to the conversation how often words like feeling an attitude come up. it points to an important distinction of how this will affect our perception and how it will affect the underlying economic and physical dynamics of the oil market and its relationship to the global economy. i agree with robin and ed -- this is likely to affect our perception significantly. if you look at the history of oil and international politics, will influence as international

politics because people think that oil influences international politics. then the act on those police and those actions have real-world consequences. if you think it matters that saudi every biya is a big supplier of oil, he will do things because of that. actions are affected by perceptions. reality is affected by perceptions. reality is also affected by reality. we live it in a globally integrated oil market. it is not perfect. it is not the theoretical economic ideal that people sometimes claim or assume exist. we -- but we essentially do. even if we are producing as much as we consume, when something goes terribly wrong in the middle east, the only way to insulate the united states from a price spike which would be economically damaging would be to borrow export.

whether it is because we have said by law you are not allowed to export oil. otherwise it will be drawn to other parts of the world to equalize prices. that would be big decision. i would not want to assume we are going to decide to break down this open system for global trade and oil. there are eight other -- a lot of other geopolitical implications. if prices go down, that changes the relative power of countries in the world. we talk about the geopolitical implications of the consumer because we're used to thinking of the consumer. if you think as a producer, you get into fights about export policy, trade policy, direct investment policies. all of those have big geopolitical implications. >> adam, i am interested in your thoughts on this part of the conversation. i also want to look at putting

the u.s. aside for a moment. these have been times of high oil prices internationally. what is the number at which it really begins to scramble some of the internal politics in a country like russia which has built a lot of assumption into its budget of continued high oil prices? where does the price of oil starts to affect potentially in political stability in certain parts of the world? what is your feeling about that? >> and number of analysts both and government agencies and private sector companies have analyzed budget breakeven prices for a number of countries on oil. and number of countries, russia and nigeria, have very high prices.

some others have fairly low break-evens. if you consider that range, most of the numbers a year ago were falling. the average was somewhere in below 90's. because of higher prices and somewhat higher production in a number of these countries, the budget breakeven has come down somewhat. it might be in the mid 80's now. skipping over that for a second and going back to one of the major themes that have been brought up by virtually everyone here, one of the things that need to be considered is what does this really mean for the u.s.? this is a huge potential

positive productivity shock to the u.s. economy. it could grow gdp, strengthen the dollar, shrink the trade deficit. all of these things are tremendously positive. one thing to keep it in mind about this to expand globally is that the u.s. has managed to make for progress in this area than of virtually any other country around the world. it will be interesting to see the extent to which developments in the u.s. perceives into other countries. so far, other than canada and maybe australia, it has not really moved as rapidly as he might expect it to. >> what about china?

do we see prospects for them to experience a similar change it in their internal energy picture? >> i think it is just beginning. there are a lot of other things going on in the domestic chinese market, particularly with gas. that needs to be preconditions of the shell gas transfer into china, such as gas pricing reform. they are starting to experiment with this in a couple of provinces. it will also potentially change their relationship with russia. in a time of plenty for gas around the world, russian need to diversify its markets at a time when western europe did not have the stability of lower-

priced ong as a substitute for rushing gas. it would make it easier for russians and chinese to come together on a deal, sudden they have been working on for a long time but never get there. i think there are a number of implications about -- for china, and terms of domestic gas production potential both in conventional gas, methane, in addition to shell gas which would probably come last. we might find that out in the next five to ten years. role in the international gas market also change. >> ed, how do you respond to the question of whether we are being -- letting our hearts lee does when it comes to the

prospect of being more independent from the entanglements of the middle east as a result of this? >> i an not moved in a lot of ways. i think there is more consensus on this issue than otherwise might be the case. the u.s. has brought interest. mike is right in talking about the role of oil. i have been thinking about the role of the middle east since i have been looking at the subject. when the u.s. was first interest in oil in the middle east in the modern history, it was to make sure russia did not get control of the middle east oil. then the cold war was over and into regional relationships became the driver, rather than the cold war. there are bound to be other issues that will rise.

i want to make a point that others have made and i think we have let go. about the u.s. have been the lowest cost of electricity in the world and natural gas. it is not just the issue of oil self-sufficiency that is driving what is happening. there is an industrial investment boom that is unfolding slower than it might. it is likely to accelerate. the lag has been smart companies like the one john hughes to be at saying we have got an opportunity to negotiate -- like the one john used to be at, saying we have got an opportunity to negotiate. it is not based on natural gas

or oil but ngo. the lowest priced at a producer in the world has incredible implications. the steel industry has become transformed. it is a symbiotic relationship between growing and the need for turbular steel. the u.s. is seen incredible investments. the manufacturing jobs we think we can look at a in a very conservative way are between three and 4 million between now and 2020. the implications include what is happening in the u.s. economy and it is pretty profound. >> allow to go back to the bigger picture u.s. questions. michael and ed wanted to intervene. >> in the picture that had

painted and will be worried about is important. it takes is to a time in our history where we did not have as open of the global trading system. preferential arrangements for oil trade and tariff systems made geography matter more than it does today. when we had a world superpower rival, the soviet union, that we worried would invade. we are not in the world now. but we could be in the world in a couple of decades. one important thing to keep in mind the talk about all of this supply picture is that its impact on the world on the linear course without many changes from where we are today is very different from what the impact might be if we end up in a world that is very different

when it comes to global trade and global security. if we end up in that world in 20 years, the fact that we have more abundant supplies depending on what we have extracted between now and then will have potentially different implications. >> i learned many years ago [inaudible] [laughter] i only do it when it is necessary. i do not disagree with ed at all on the positive aspects on the domestic economy of this natural-gas and oil production boom from america. i was trying to make a different point. the point is that that self- sufficiency, if we were to achieve it, did not insulate us in the global economy. as we are finding out today with

what is happening in europe now. the supply from the release might not be so critical for us anymore but where the -- where does that leave the global economy and who will secure the supply lines from the middle east? we have this mixed feeling about when the chinese in particular start doing too much to protect their own interests. we feel threatened when they do that. when they do not do enough, we call them free-riders. somewhere between the two, we have to figure out what the mix of collaboration as we are doing with the somali pirate problem might now, of how to share that global responsibility even if the middle east supply is no longer so critical to our own economy. >> this has been a record year for some mali -- somali pirates

this year. i want to go back and ask robin and john to start as off in a conversation about what are the u.s. political implications of this, in the short term, this is an election year. we are seeing both campaigns talking a lot more about energy than he might have expected a couple of years ago. i am curious if for both the year takes -- for both of your takes. in a long-term sense, do you see it being associated with one party or the other? >> i find it fascinating that one word had not been mentioned once in this panel today -- carbon. the president has said that climate-carbon is one of his

priorities in the next administration. if waxman was the basis of that, that was their philosophical legislative statement. this will be aeuro-green approach to use government regulation to drive in new technologies. i do not think there is much support for that in the country. it is very interesting, last week ago friday was the highest day ever recorded in june. we have been hurt -- been hearing about weather and the heat. climate is an interesting issue. governor romney is going to come out for a much more pro market shifting power to the states, opening up public lands. one of the key issues is the epa.

that is really where the power lies in this whole issue. states like pennsylvania and ohio are a bunch of new oil- producing states. the political calculus will change domestically. but i think in the end, one of the president's regular tat lines is he really does not like the oil industry. i think that is fair to say and he was to tax it more. it is a target. there is a danger with some congressmen -- what could screw this whole thing up its infrastructure. and the lack of infrastructure. whether it is using a regulation or not changing legislation, i think there is a chance for this thing to be stymied. it could come from washington. although it was initiated by the market. >> john, do you agree this

potentially cut against obama even though this has happened on his watch whether he has had anything to do with it or not. >> the politics of energy are hugely important in the national dialogue. it will be a major discussion factor as the campaign carries on. there are many points of view with respect to the politics of energy. everyone can be right and everyone could be wrong. and the clear -- energy development of energy, all kinds of energy, could be the basis of a whole new era of prosperity changing the whole economy. changing the revenue flow to the government. changing the deficit position of communities and states and the federal deficit itself. if we could unleash all of that transparency.

at the same time, we choke on our waste. a think we could turn waste management into part of the prosperity as well. i'd do not think the president -- i think the president is wearing thin with the discussion as around carbon when it really should be around waste. because it is water, land and air. carbon only implies air. but there is a whole waste management industry that could grow with the increased prosperity in the production of natural resources at the same time. i think whoever can get the story right to the voters will be more successful. this either or business does not work. we have had a miserable experiences over the last three years with gasoline prices in the first and second quarter, leading to near recession in the third quarter. the last three years, stock

market volatility. people are tired of the uncertainties of low growth. slow growth. no growth. what people are looking for is a way for the economy to rebound and sustain that rebound and to experience real growth. i think the opportunity is there. either party could grab it and run with it. i maintain a non-partisan position to whomever i talk to but the reality is, this country can be poised for such incredible growth for decades if we unleash it. and let it happen. i include waste management as an industry that's is part and parcel of how we grow going forward. >> adam, d.c. other ways in which this can -- do you see other ways in which this can rescramble the u.s. economy?

are we going to become an energy state? >> in many ways, this question of energy independence, wherever it takes you, we do not import a lot of electricity. forecasts are that we will be in natural gas by 2020. we've had it there a discussion on the oil side. as the only federal employee on this panel -- >> i did not ask you whether president obama -- >> a federal government has not been as negative as some have characterized it. natural gas and oil hydraulic fracturing, a lot of the seismic technology used -- the

independence who were responsible for the breakthroughs in natural gas factoring were helped tremendously by federal subsidy on natural-gas production. he might even look a that as being one of the better federal policies. there was a subsidy put on when needed and taken off when it was not needed anymore. there are a number of things going on in terms of federal government now. the president was out in oklahoma a few months ago, encouraging the federal agencies across the board to speed up their permitting process for an for structure development. a lot of things are happening that are much more positive than what you often see in the press.

my feeling is that the economics ultimately will drive this. the economics are positive. many of the things we are seeing in the energy area will have very strong implications for economic growth and environmental issues that john has brought up can be managed. managing those will often require a state and federal regulation but getting those regulations wright will actually help encourage development, not discourage it. >> rabin challenged us to bring up a subject we have not talked about much of which is global warming and how this might scramble both the u.s. politics of that but also the international politics of it. michael, i know that is a part of your job description. walk us through your scenario.

>> let me elaborate on what atom has said. it is important to be clear about what the president has done and what his strategy is. yes, there has been an effort to go after some relatively small tax treatment or whatever you want to call them. we are talking about up to $4 billion a year in an industry that is far larger than that. on the carbon front, it is also important to be clear that good carbon policy is perfectly consistent with the sort of oil and gas development we're talking about. in the latest energy outlook, there are special cases. my recollection is that oil

production increases abundant -- in both of those mottling exercises because the co2 price creates an incentive to cash in carbon dioxide. projections are not lawful but that is a real possibility. that is a growth potential in u.s. production we have not talked about. increased u.s. oil production is unlikely to have a large impact on global emissions and increased natural gas production is is likely to display kohl and therefore reduce emissions. the bigger potential impact on climate policy -- to some extent the discussion about climate policy to date has completed several different challenges. one of which was gas emissions

in global warming. if that piece of the coalition that wants climate policy in place vanishes because of the sense of abundance, then i think it becomes more difficult to put good climate policy in place. you can argue the other way. every time you run the cost estimates of a model, those estimates, in lower if you have more abundant natural gas because it makes it cheaper to meet your target. you could imagine this helping in some ways. but it certainly scramble's things. there is no question about that. i will make one more observation because you asked about the international politics. for the most part, people in the united states to care about climate change think natural gas is good news. there is a local community that thinks it is bad news in part based on some studies on the

leakage of methane in the basic belief about infrastructure trends and how we have to pick one direction or another. that is not the view in europe. there, natural gas is generally seen as a bad thing for climate change in a bad direction when it comes to climate change. at the international level, that will take us into some problems. when we go to a meeting and say we have reduced our admissions, they will say natural-gas? that is not a popular story. that will cause some friction. >> that is an important point. does anyone else wants to weigh in on where the climate discussion goes? >> i think waxman mentioned national dick -- natural gas twice. but the impact on the economy does not depend on how many words are devoted -- >> what it does to the economics. >> what happens is there was a

big program and a lot of political capital was invested in it. something entirely different happened. >> we are in -- you have the trade off of using domestic coal which is very dirty and which harms the environment, the air people breathe. as income grows, the population will become more concerned about these matters and if there is availability of gas, whether domestic or imported gas, you now have a substitute that may be readily available the was not part of the equation at one time but will become increasingly important.

that is where the energy growth and therefore carbon emissions growth is coming from. that will definitely bend the curve for them. >> i think europe's voice in the world can be loud and demanding the europe's overall impact on the world i think is not all that great when you see the world's largest economy and the world's second-largest economy pretty much choosing the path they will choose. there is a very strong, and i would call it a passion, to do things right, because when the industry gets it wrong, we see the disasters that occur. when it comes to regulations, the oil and gas industry is looking for clarity and

continuity, because clarity and continuity you can manage e, you can engineer toward it, you can to controlngs happen leaks or stop them altogether. i think clarity is important. when it declared a becomes politicized, this program this year, new regulations pending, that becomes frustrating and that is when the industry pushes back. if there is a tendency toward best practice cease and toward regulation using best practices, you will get a lot of industry cooperation, which has positive impact on the environment. >> there is a lot of shale elsewhere in the world, china, india, argentina, but we estimate it takes about 1500

wells to prove up a play. with the exception of canada, there is no place in the world where they have drilled more than 100 wells. what happened in the united states, which it could come up perfect storm in which we had a huge service sector, a transparent gas market, independents to get financing. high prices were financing it. there was a gas market, gathering, gas transmission, everything was in place to happen at these guys could figure it out. if you go to china, their fiscal system is all wrong. it will take these other places a long time. i think frankly some rules may have much more application in those places than they do in the untied states and should be

encouraged. >> we have had a patient audience. i want to give you a chance to jump in with your questions. if you can keep your questions to be a question and give us your name and where you are from. we will start out with you. >> the maxwell school. what you are positing today is important, but it is not very well known or understood. what kinds of actions do you see as important in the next year or so to get the public work broadly educated, and, in particular, university students? i have students coming out with tremendous depth who think they ngo's. bge

energy is not something they think of. they take my public policy course, and the one area where you could but combine earning a living, doing a real job, and doing something worthwhile if you have assisted the bill be -- sustainability friend, would be an issue. what suggestions do you have to attract students? >> this seems to go to your point. >> this is a critical factor as a public matter of national will be. the lack of information that permeates our society on all matters relating to energy and the environment is a very serious problem. as i used to say in api meetings, if you do not have the public on your side, then the public is against you. the way to get the public on

your side is information. i founded as an for affordable energy for specifically that reason and spent seven days a week trying to engage people at all levels across the country just to get information out. it is basic, simple information about what it is, what is possible, what is not, what is important. we cannot count on media because media have taken a job to do, which is about exposing cannot not educated. there is an outcome of some form of education, so i welcome media all the time, and a brace began as an outlet, but it is not media's job to educate the job -- the public on education. our school systems badly lacked any approach to energy. oklahoma is the only state that

is part of a state curriculum that mandates that to get nick price energy education at all levels. we have this huge undertaking that has to take place. it is not helpful when politicians vilified the very source of economic value creation that comes from all sources of energy, and what it is right-wing policy -- politicians bad mouthing sustainable, it is not helpful. i know why they do it, but it does not do any good other than for their own electoral results, perhaps. i think we have to undertake this as parents, as leaders in society, as teachers of those who are coming after us, and we owe it to our citizens to do that on a sustained basis. >> i know you wanted to jump in. >> you come from the energy

intermission administration. -- energy information administration. if you do an internet search, use a search energy and type in "energy information," we come up first. it is interesting to me, the third hit that you get in google the kids' page. it has a lot of good information on where energy comes from, how it is used, and it is extremely popular. i hope kind of thing filters down, the eia web site that has been redesigned, it gets hundreds of thousands of hits daily, and it is a very useful

tool, not just for kids, but for everybody in the analytic community and policy committee that is looking for answers to some of these basic questions. >> i want to get some more questions here. sir? can you wait for the microphone? >> a two-part question. more firm put out the top 50 every year and a sheet companies. i wondered how this might shake up this list and the sense as much of the revolution we're talking about is in the western hemisphere. what does this mean for previous national champions given a lot of that is going on in the u.s. and otherwise traditional natural gas and will plays still under state control in saudi arabia and others? going back to the geopolitical

implications of this, and this is for the broader panel, we talked about a shared global responsibility, but with about the u.s. against our engagement in india and china. what about the gulf producers, our agreements with them? what about our traditional consuming country allies, south korea, japan, europe? what does it mean to them that the u.s. is more energy secure? >> a good question. >> in terms of the industry , what is happening in north america is not going to change the list very much of the top 50 companies. one of the interesting things is it is important understand north american conventional plays is a different process. you drill thousands of wells. but the big companies do, they develop an enormous capital intensive engineering intensive

projects, big offshore projects, shell, the gulf of mexico, or the tar sands project in canada. that is their business. this north american business is largely independents. some of the majors are looking at this. this is a big resource plate. independents run their business for production growth. it is a different model and a real shot edge -- a real challenge. ed, do you want to touch on the support? >> my feeling is it does not change dates as much as people would like or as quickly would like. susan pointed out the somali piracy problem has not been solved. just pick up what it would be like if we did not share that responsibility. this is the beginning of our experiment. we have not done this thing very

much before. it would be interesting to see how that goes. it is a shared irresponsibility with our traditional allies as well, but in a time of plenty, it allows you to think more about the shared protection of the global commons people we were once concerned about as their power inevitably, i would submit, increases in places like india and china. the traditional ally relationship will be in place, and i assume they will continue to want us to play a fair share of that. how do you define that fair share is the interesting question. >> to pick up on this one quickly, there is a bigger impact on the gas side than the well site. on it will side, the biggest benefit be somewhat lower oil

prices. the biggest potential downside is the u.s. misreads the situation and scales back its investment security around a board which will affect everyone. and natural gas, we have seen it already. the fact that united states has not bought gas from the middle east as affected the market in europe or russia. we could see changes in asia as well where we are having the conversation in this country about potential exports. i do not see themselves being revolution, but they are an important piece of the puzzle that gives consumers cannot korea and japan, or leverage in dealing with producers and will take some of the politics out of national gas trades. that is a good thing for the united states. >> we have had a patient gentleman here in front and i will try to get to as many as you as i can. >> you will forgive me, but from

what i have heard i think you guys missed the big story here, and that is that instead of a one single world price market for petroleum and other energy commodities, which are starting to see at divergence between what i call the western hemispheric pricing and the brent pricing. we sell as much of the 20% diverges between a brent -eper- barrel price this year and that seems to be continuing. this is something big that is happening here in terms of the independents, and it will put s in a position where suddenly -- let me bring this to a question -- suddenly we will see a world in which not only is the united states capable of

operating on its own, the pricing mechanism will be different for our hemisphere and the rest of the war, we will be less concerned with what happens es overseas.crisi with pressure on federal deficits, the people say we should price or at least tax the barrels that go into our domestic economy differently than those that are exported abroad? we have seen other nations do this -- norway, the russian federation -- and they bring in a lot of tax revenue, but putting heavier, larger taxes on the energy that is consumed outside of their country. do you see the possibilities of this? >> that is a word we have not seen to now. >> it would violate the constitution of the united states. that is a basic rule which has

been reaffirmed by the supreme court. that makes it less likely. >> i disagree with the premise fundamentally. it is true that the differential between brent and wti has reversed itself, and that is for a lot of technical reasons. it is not like consistently brent rises and wti falls. it is true the differential has flipped, but that does not mean the world pricing relationships in terms of the global market l.s changed al -- at all. there are times when prices went

up, even though they are a net exporter, prices still went up. i do not agree with the premise of the question. >> sir? you go ahead and then we will get the other gentleman. >> we had a long discussion about supply shock. how about the man shot? -- demand shock? people are discussing china experiencing a much faster demand growth. it would be interesting to hear about that issue. >> there is controversy about what we think about supply. there is more controversy about

what we think about demand. the position you raise is important. one, what is the share of world gdp that goes into energy costs whes? when brent was rising a few months ago, the% of global gdp was at its record level, same level that it was in the latter part of the 1970's. i'm pretty sure that was the case. this may be one reason why there is a cap on prices because the impact on the global economy at a certain level is very high. the other observation i would make, and this goes to issues about what we think about china in particular, let alone india, is that demand does not slowed down. it comes to a to the point, and

-- it comes to a tipping point. regarding the history of japan in 1973, 1974, or korea to the late 1990's, they had incredible growth, double-digit growth in all of these cases, and then a wall of a sudden, and that level of petroleum demand has never been exceeded. japan cannot record year a product and was in 1974. other countries, their record years work 1974. double digit acceleration. china has not had double-digit acceleration. it has the power generation requirements. if you look at china and there is controversy about the data come about what might be going on, but two years ago, the annualized growth of demand for

power in china was 20%. a year ago it was 10%. today it is 3%. petroleum product meant this year has grown less than 1% year on year. there's something going on, and it may be the structure of the economy is changing. it may be that the time of focusing on its share has come to an -- focusing on infrastructure has come to an end. to the degree to know about demand, it is that it can come to a tipping point. , i promised we would end on time, so i will close this with a close lightning round. there is so much more we could get at. i would like to ask everybody for a winner and loser from the premise of our question, which is this american boom has happened. one that we have not talked about so far, and michael, you just look at me.

>> we have not talked about yet? we have talked about every country in the world. winnder, denied it states -- -- winner, united states? loser thank you for the suggestion. russia. >> the audience will get to vote on this afterward. adam? >> i think the winner is the average american wage earner. i think wages go up when we develop more, and if we can manage the environmental issues, which i believe we can, everybody wins here. as far as losers, i do not see it that way. a positive development here does not mean that anybody as to lose, whether here or overseas. >> what about those dictators in the middle east? >> i would like to believe in one globalized world in which everyone shares in a growing

time, but there are winners and losers, and the audience and michael picked on the obvious winners and losers, being the u.s. and russia, not scented because of what is happening -- and not simply because what is happening with the latest will commodities, and it looks like what is happening all across commodity land. single countries in the commodity business really are in a zero-sum world when it comes to this business. that makes for a severe amount of political turmoil. it is not a stupid politically positive issue, and i would note that, as i think to the market consequences of what is unfolding, just on the oil markets, the ripple effects on the gas market, this will be a significantly more volatile price environment rather than a less volatile price environment, and the winners and losers in that are the same period a

commodity producer and a volatile price environment in which you are struggling to keep market share and revenue -- is not a pretty picture. >> i would take it differently. united states is a winner. the loser is the environmental movement. that could be a big mistake. i come back to my point earlier that this is not the end of history. this is not a static situation. technology and politics will continue to drive and a lot of changes. it ain't over. i would urge people to keep pushing its. >> winner, i would say consumers are on the board, not just in the united states, at that time where you could have lower energy prices, and a distant second energy choices, depending on how you value the

environment, climate change, and so on. you have different menus of options than previously thought you had. hugo chavez is someone who has not been called upon yet as a loser. i agree with ed, whenever i can. it is absolutely the prudent thing to do. for those same single commodity economies, it could also become a winning situation for them in the long run, in this sense that carry high energy prices have enabled an awful lot of bad economic policy in those countries, and a lower price of oil, in particular, may be --

may allow room for a different kind of economic thinking and reform that is very necessary for those countries. in the long run they are winners, too. >> john? >> the winner will be north americans as we get this right from the government's standpoint. north america probably will win the most and we will start a multi-decade a generation of prosperity in this part of the world. the big loser will be opec with the exception of saudi arabia, which has more enlightened global thinking that any of the other opec nations. they will find their way. opec will descend into chaos as an organization and will have -- they cannot know now how much they hated by the entire world, but they will find out as things unfolded. >> that you so much. i am not sure it is an upbeat note to end on, but a crop of one. what a terrific discussion, and taken to the new american foundation and steve for hosting us and for all of you for

coming today. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this weekend -- >> the campaign collection is about 100,000-odd items. that is important because what we're trying to do is keep this large tradition full and documented and reflect a larger story of american democracy. >> a look at the smithsonian's

presidential memorabilia collection. so sunday, or from the contenders, our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. this week, wendell willkie. he would never hold office. he would become an unlikely to fdr, at 7:30, american history t -- this weekend on cb span on c-span3. >> when he realized these armies were not coming to his aid, that is when he collapsed, when he realized it had come to an end and was only a question of suicide. >> a historian with a new look at the second world war, from hitler's writes the power to his dark, chaotic, final days.

>> his main objective was not to be captured by the russians. he was afraid of being operated by the russians in moscow in a cage. he was determined to dine. -- to die. eva braun was determined to die with him. >> joe biden spoke at the annual convention of the naacp today. you can see that tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. here's some of what he had to say. >> remember what this at its core was all about. why this organization at its core was all about. it was about the franchise. it was about the right to vote. when you have the right to vote you have the right to change things.

and we, the president and i and eric 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 gender in access to housing and lending. did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the committee for almost 17 years as a ranking member. we went treaties battle. i did not think we would be

back. back. 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 were republican ideas. but this is not the republican party view today, nor romney's. they see a different future, where voting is not easier, where the justice department is prohibited from challenging those efforts to suppress the 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 choir. let me close, my friends, by saying i want you -- i mean this sincerely -- to 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

attorney general and 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] >> when you think about cyber actors, we have criminals, actors, and terrorists. not all those our nation states. when you think about deterrence

theory, you're not talking about just nation on nation deterrents, you have other non- nation state actors you have to consider. in one of these attacks, you may 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 for your system costs capabilities for a period of time. it does not matter who did it. you have to come up with a strategy that solves that. >> assessing current and future cyber threats online at the c- span be a library. this weekend, growing up in the shadows of the rocky flats nuclear weapons facility. a look at the effects on the

environment and the people, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, and sunday, the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> carter was mcgovern with a magnolia accent to her, and she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, she was a full-fledged opposed the carter in which she's all that appeasement, and particularly, crucial in this respect in 1979, she saw the fall of the shah a couple of last trading experiences for her. swofford.0,anthon anthony

susan collins was honored on the floor of the senate today for reading a boat a milestone. she was tweeted she is becoming the senate's cal ripken. >> senator collins has just pass an important milestone, her 5000 consecutive roll call vote. a tenacious accomplishment. it represents the dedication susan collins has the people of maine and for the senate. she is one of the hardest working members of the united states senate. listen to this -- since she was sworn in in january of 1997, she has been present for every single roll call votes. that is over 15 consecutive years, of never missing a vote. senator collins is in the lead company. she recently pass senator byrd

and is now third all-time between -- behind senator grassley and the late bill proxmire from wisconsin. she decried -- she took pride in the company up for role model, a n, senator margaret chase smith from maine. i want to congratulate senator collins for this great achievement. >> this remarkable accomplishment, and i hope i did not get her in trouble with her colleagues, but i really like her. i appreciate her ability to work

with us, work with everybody. she is somebody who you never have to guess where she stands on an issue, and i admire and appreciate her so much for that. i have worked with her on issues going back for many, many years. i really, again, say i appreciate what she has done. she has great genes. her mother and father each served as mayor of a small town in maine, a place called caribou, and i did not have fond memories of care because of my 1998 race, there was a great mailing we did. one of my consultants from nevada, instead of having deer, they at care to on my campaign

literature. i am sure the town of care is better than my campaign spot. her family ran a lumber business trip her father was also a state senator. i am confident susan has learned to be the senators she is because bill cohen. i had the pleasure of serving with this good man from maine. i served as a junior member when he was the chairman of an aging committee, and he was such a wonderful man. i still talk to bill cohen, and she still has many of his trades. she worked for him. -- and i amagreat confident that the ability she has is attracted to him. she has been known by her ability to compromise, and she

works with everyone. what she has done with joe lieberman is magnificent. they have worked with dignity of and on a totally bipartisan basis. 5000 votes, frankly, a number of us have cast 5000 votes, but it is ridiculous, the examples he has set to never miss one. i wish her the very best and her many years to serve in the senate. >> july on c-span radio, is start supreme court arguments

focusing on election issues. >> throughout the breeze, they refer to us as being independent, professionally run. we think these are code words for saying we are effected. because we are effected come our speech should not be choked off. >> federal election commission v ncpac, at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.org radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119. this weekend -- >> the tim kaine collection is 100,000 objects. -- the campaign collection is 100,000 objects. we try to keep this large tradition full and documented

and reflect the larger story of american democracy. >> and look at the smithsonian presidential campaign never be a connection. -- campaign memorabilia -- collection. wendell willkie would never become to hold off a street american history this weekend on c-span3. >> a live look at the senate side of the u.s. capitol. but the house and senate have finished their business this week. house party leaders outlined next week's agenda. this is a half hour. democratic whip for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet

at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension -- excuse me -- madam speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. -- mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: i again yield to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank you. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5872, the sequestration transparency act

sponsored by congressman jeb hensarling. this is a bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on january 2. chairman paul ryan and the budget committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so i expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules. finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the house will consider h.r. 5856, the department of defense appropriations act, sponsored by congressman bill young. this will be the house's seventh appropriations bill of the year. i expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on wednesday, july 18, and thursday, july 19. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. as the gentleman knows, we have

-- as i calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in july and the beginning of august of which three of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. as a result, we don't have much time left. i would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the -- i understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the question. madam speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo, making members aware of where we're headed for the remainder of the summer -- remainder of the july period. i would say to the gentleman, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators.

as we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult, more expensive for small businesses and lawyers to create jobs. we will be focusing on that, and the following week, madam speaker, will be the week in which we'll bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year. in addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the american people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the gentleman's answer and i think we have

consensus on this floor by cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the federal government or by the state government or by local governments. we have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. i think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. however, when i ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on the -- couple of levels. i think i may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that bruce bartlett, who i think the gentleman probably knows, former reagan and president george h.w. bush official saying that no claim for regulatory issues have increased. he says this. republicans have embraced the idea that this is holding back employment. they assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of

new regulation which created uncertainty of business and prevents them from investing in hiring. as i said, he said, no hard evidence is offered for this claim. he then says, in my opinion that means -- bruce bartlett -- 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 gentl >> the house and senate are done for the week. democratic and republican leaders talk about this week cozy business and look forward to next week. first is john boehner. >> 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 have given up looking for work altogether. many more are unemployed now than when the president was inaugurated. the rate has been stuck 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, "the 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 an 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 farm bill out of 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. you have never shyed from waiting on the senate to do anything. [unintelligible] >> we're not going to make mistakes made in the past. we will not pass a 2,700-page bill that nobody ever read. we will 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 it, how patriotic do 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 do you think the obama administration is grappling -- with the iranian military threats? >> i'm not going to disclose classified information, but the threat from iran regarding israel. it is real for our ally israel and for all the countries in the region. i think we passed an iran sanctions bill where we gave the president a full toolbox, for him to use to help bring the iranians to heel.

the president ought to use more of the tools that were given to him to get iran to declare that they are not going to produce nuclear weapons. >> you 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 bringing down corporate and personal tax rates, closing those loopholes, those special deals and other credits 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 de- linking the tax cuts for the middle class? >> raising taxes in an economy that is weak 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 in the house will have an opportunity later this month to offer the president's plan. i hope they take advantage of it. >> the u.s. olympic team is going to be wearing 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 until 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 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 their currency hike is inappropriate. every administration for the last 15 years has worked the chinese central bank and the chinese government to get them to adjust 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. >> do you have any issues with congressman jackson's explanation for his absence, and do you think his office should divulge more information about his condition? >> we hope he gets well soon and hope he gets back. 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] >> good morning. as the note yesterday for the thirtysomething time the republicans tried to take away protections for patience and our country. a little baby born with a birth defect, a senior getting prescription drugs, much less expensive because of the affordable care act. these women getting -- whether

it is this a very powerful protection for patience and that is removing limits on the coverage they can receive it. whether it is young adults who can be on their president policy until there are 26 years old 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. once again the republicans on the floor of the house voted for the special interest over the people's interest. today as we had been doing day after day, we are calling upon republicans to pass middle-

income tax cuts. as you know he led at a step we can take right now that would bring more certainty and stability to our economy. republicans must stop holding middle and come tax cuts hostage for their tax cuts to their wealthy friends. what is really important about all of this is policies you see them advocating are directly related to the politics and the political climate we are in. you cannot have fairness if you have a complete on reported large significant special interest money pouring into the political process. to suffocate the system and

suppress the vote and to poison the debate. that is why we issued a dare to say, we dare to disclose, overturned citizens united, reform politics, that he lacked reformers who are willing to do that. our founders knew our system depended on a democracy for the boys in the vote of the many to determine the outcome of elections. therefore the policies that would spring from that and not the checkbooks of the very few of plutocracy, the government of the rich and the government of the few, not of the many. it is in the interest of our democracy we have accountability and transparency. that is why after the supreme court's misguided decision on

the citizens united disclosure was one of the few courses of action that was available to us. a person who took the lead holding firm to the bows of our founders ischris 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 interests are trying to rig the 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. the disclose 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.

-- republicans 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 the right 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 republican despite 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. john conyers had suggested he would like to see the 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 interest -- but i think let's pursue won a remedy, which is the investigation that the assignment -- that the

administration has given as an assignment. 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. let's see how he and other 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 onboard. 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 these secret donations 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 outraising money against democrats proved them up nothing. democrats have been on record 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 system so we can get rid of 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 if you are serious about long- term fiscal discipline you have to make choices as to how to achieve that. if you do not ask the people at the top two contribute, to go back to what they were doing in the clinton years, you are asking the rest of the country to pay the bill. >> i remind you going back to the clinton rates would be a good thing for the country. just to remind when president bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2% when

he left it was almost double that. these tax cuts at the high end were not helpful for deficit reduction. thank you very much. >> when you think about cyber actors, let's put them into five groups. nation states, cyber criminals, hackers, terrorists. not all of those are nation states. when you think about deterrence theory, you're not just talking about nation and nation, you have other non asian actors to have to consider. in one of these attacks you may 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 for 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 cells that. >> watched general keith alexander assess current and future cyber security threats online at the c-span video library. this weekend, and growing up in the shadows and secrets of a nuclear facility. from "full body burden." kristen iversen at 7:00 eastern. >> carter -- she saw the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979 she was in full-fledged opposition to what she saw as

carterism. that appeasement -- and crucial in this respect -- she saw the fall of the shah and a couple of lacerating experiences for her and people like her. >> the political woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine. at 10:00, the author of "jarhead" on a life since leaving the military. this weekend on c-span 2. >> hitler by then had no plan. when he realized these armies were not coming to his but were trying to west, that is when he collapsed. end and it was a question of suicide. >> a look at the second world >> a look at the second world