you make trade-offs and you make yourself happy. >> my name is ashley. i'm wondering what books he recommend to students. >> books. you can start off with "the federalist papers" of course. i think ayn rand is a fun read. everybody says "at less shrugged -- atlas shrugged." "we the living," i liked that one, which is softer than the normal ayn rand thing. i liked "the economist."

if somebody made me go back to school, i would study economics. i like that kind of stuff, because it gets you ready to do battle when you have to. i also like silly books, as well. do not be afraid to read those two, because taking a vacation from this intellectually and civic elite is good for you. >> let me ask you, where do you get your news? what recommendations do you have four students, where they should go to get really good news? >> i will say the way i get news is i use my twitter account to get almost all the news i get. for many people, especially young people, that is a cool way to do it. i find because i used my twitter stream -- i set up a specific group of people i follow for

breaking news, and it has been built over several years, and it's really large at this point -- the point being i find i am a good 25 minutes ahead of people on breaking news because i am on twitter. i checked but other sources. that is my favorite way to follow news, and it feels the same as the shift when i was in newspapers. i was the only person reading blogs in the newsroom. twitter can serve the same purpose. can be fast and wrong, sorry you need to check. if you are a news junkie, that is my favorite thing. i also love "the wall street journal," fox is. i like to watch my own cliffs. hotair.com, because i work there now.

the george mason university economists have their own blogs. a woman who works at newsweek -- i love reading her. aside from news, i like reading more analytical, wonky stuff. everybody done? since we are on c-span, i would like to get a shot-out to the c- span2 library, which is possibly the coleus -- coolest website. you could go back to 2000 and watch old mitt romney debate. what could be better? it is a really useful tool, great to have at your disposal. i use it all the time. all right. have a great summer. live at the state

department this morning, awaiting the release of their annual report on international religious freedom. looking at the status of religious freedom in countries around the world, expected to get under way in the moment. hillary clinton will talk about that report later today at the carnegie endowment. countries of particular concern highlighted in last report are myanmar, korea, and saudi arabia. this morning, we spoke with a reporter who has written a story on the inspector general's report on the impact of reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. his story you can read in today's "the washington post."

host: the report questions afghan strategies. joining us is the senior correspondent with "the washington post." this is your story we are looking at. what is the news out of this report? you write it goes further than any other report has before. guest: traditionally the inspector general reports that have looked at the reconstruction programs in iraq, and more recently in afghanistan locust on issues of waste, fraud, and bees. contractors have stolen money or buildings could have been built with leaky roofs. with this what this looks at, and why i find a unique and what i read the story, it looks at the broader strategy.

the idea that by pumping in hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into large infrastructure projects, power projects, road projects, etc., the united states can achieve a counter insurgency benefit, can assist the military campaign by weaning over the sentiments of the afghan said the string, and what the report finds is the simple process of trying to plan and fund these projects and get them built, it is such a long process that whatever benefits might accrue likely will not accrue until after the u.s. combat forces depart afghanistan in 2014, and moreover, this report looks at

an even bigger issue, which is in some cases by promising all this to the afghan people. you will get more electricity, all these other traditional services, and that because of these delays and real questions about the government possibility to sustain these projects, once u.s. funding ebbs, and the afghan government ability to maintain dead with skilled technical personnel, which they lack, the special inspector, general warns that what the united states is doing is creating and expectations gap that could be counterproductive to our overall strategy to try to stabilize the country. host: tell us about the timing issue. you referenced your story and how some of these projects may come to fruition too late. why is that a problem? guest: u.s. forces are in the

process of withdrawing down in afghanistan. the president who decided to search forces into the nine decided that tubes are starting to come home, and they are in the process of doing so now between now and the end of september, and additional of top dozen or so troops coming back. likely more will come out next year. the united states is committed to withdrawing all combat forces by the end of 2014, as have all the other nato member states that are participating in international operations to try to stabilize afghanistan. the point of these projects is to be essentially support the military mission in trying to stabilize afghanistan. if the project did not come alive until after the troops leave, there is a disconnect. one of the responses made by the

state department and the u.s. agency for international development to this report is that these projects are a sign of ongoing u.s. commitment to afghanistan, and that is part of the overall u.s. government strategy, to show the afghan people that the united states is not going to abandon them when combat forces leave. that is perhaps a very defensible argument. when it this fund for afghan infrastructure was created by congress in 2010, the argument made at the state department and the defense department was that these would help with military effort, would help with the overall counterinsurgency campaign over there. it is that disconnect that the special inspector general has honed in on on this report. host: one of our twitter

followers -- is that true? guest: diesel plants are unsustainable. the generators are not expensive. afghans do notave the money. when funding runs out, at guns will not be able to keep these generators running unless they go to some other foreign donor. even if they did that, what that would mean is money going to in efficient diesel as opposed to other more pressing needs. the focus should have been on a more sustainable power. in defense of u.s. government, their strategy was to use these diesel generators as a temporary solution until a hydropower generator up at a dam in the mountains sort of northwest of canada are city would be repaired and a new turbine

installed. the problem is, as the inspector out, there is as, gap between what would be produced by the hydropower plant and what is offered by the generators. when they switch from generators to the hydropower plant, assuming they can actually secure that area near the dam and install the generating -- new power lines, and there is enough security for the dam, for the city, that the taliban is not stealing power along the way, assuming all of that in an ideal scenario, the dam producers will produce less access electricity than the generators are providing. there will be a drop in electricity in kandahar, and the expectation is realistic, giving

them a short-term fix that is greater than what the long-term solution is, assuming you can even get to that solution. host: senior correspondent with "the washington post," thank you so much for talking with us. >> you can read the article in today's "the washington post." officials will brief reporters on international religious freedom. secretary of state clinton will also talk about that report and countries of particular concern. she will have remarks at the carnegie endowment, and that will be live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. while we wait, a discussion on food safety from today's washington journal.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: every week we look at dollars better spent in federal programs. today we talk about the safety and how the government regulates the safety, improves, and monitors it. richard williams is the former director of the center for food safety. sinceved in that ratole 1997. when we talk about the safety, give us the basics. what are we talking about?

>> we will leave it here to go live to the state department for briefing on the release of the iraq -- on the report on international freedom. >> suzan johnson cook. ambassador? >> thank you. good afternoon, now. we are releasing the 2011 international religious freedom report. for the first time it covers the calendar year and uses the technology to improve search ability. this congressionally mandated report review's status of religious freedom in 199 countries. throughout the year our office, and disease, and consulates work with governments and civil society to produce a report that is comprehensive, detailed, accurate. they did today the secretary of state will give remarks on the importance of international

religious freedom. let me reiterate now that religious freedom is a universal for human rights and is essential for a stable, peaceful, and thriving society. as president obama has said, we stand with all who are denied the ability to choose, expressed or live their fate freely, and we remain dedicated to protecting this universal human right and a vital role it plays in ensuring peace and stability for all nations. credit of religion is not just an american right. it is the right of all people. it goes hand-in-hand with freedom of expression, speech, and assembly, and when will this freedom is at mr. to come out all these rights are at risk. rillettes freedom is often a bellwether for other human rights. it is the canary in the coal mine. unfortunately, in too many places, these rights are not respected. this report details increasing

empowerment against a range of religious communities. as you read it, several things will strike you. you will read about the a countries the secretary has designated last august as countries of particular concern, could in places such as north korea, where religious freedom does not exist, and iran, where religious freedom deteriorated from an already horrible situation, anti-semitism is on the rise, evidence by attacks on adults and children and the desecration of cemeteries. that we share with you and other troubling trends. in a number of countries, individuals were detained or imprisoned because of their religious belief. in iran, a person faces a death sentence just for his fate. the government continues to detained over 100 baha'i.

in other countries, increasingly are using blasphemy and apostasy to curb religious freedom. in saudia arabia, blasphemy against the wahabi, interpretation of its slump continues to be punishable by death. this that there were a young blogger was arrested for questioning is based on twitter. he still remains in jail without charge. in pakistan, authorities can to be to invoke these abusive loss, where hundreds of moslems and non-moslems were convicted of blasphemy. a christian benink in prison per may be an appeal for a 2010

death sentence for blasphemy. some of those who have publicly criticized these lots have a paper loss. some have already paid with their lives. nearly half of the world, countries either abuse minorities or did not intervene in cases of societal abuse. in egypt the former regime would routinely discriminate against religious minorities, and failed to curb rising violence against coptic christians and their places of worship. these patterns at continued during the transition period last upper security forces attacked demonstrators in front of the egyptian radio and television station in cairo. 25 people were killed and hundreds were injured, most of were coptic christians.

in burma, a long simmering tensions recently erupted in widespread violence against the marginalized communities, and in other countries, government misused law to restrict regfreem of religion. china restricts the practices of many groups, including christian churches, tibetan buddhists, and others. the self-immolation of over 40 tibetans to protest chinese policy continue to demonstrate the desperation. russia and use a bachus then invoke national security as a priest text -- pretext for restricting rights. others use registration laws to restrict freedom. countries have made legal

registration for religious communities difficult. in belarus, and richard cripps were frequently and able to gather for worship the or practice their religion at all, and this type of favoritism and empower societal abuse of minorities. governments, but it the right to wear or not wear religious attire. his decision should be a personal choice. increasingly some european countries drafted legislation to ban a tire that covers the face, and these bands affected muscle women, and in other regions some countries force women to cover themselves entirely. modesty coats are enforced for

women. these challenges are daunting and it is easier to focus on the egregiously bad and quietly good picture change is possible. as the ambassador, i have been privileged to be but officials from around the world. the ideas they share about ways to come together and build hope our exciting and inspirational. the state department has launched the 2012 hours against hate campaign to promote respect regardless of religion, disability, or sexual orientation. using social media, this campaign mobilized young people to volunteer time to work against intolerance and heat. we are partnering to be part summer of olympics. we are also partner in with the

paraolympics in london. it takes all of us, governments, faith communities, civil society, working together to ensure all people have the right to leave or not to believe. he just has a role to play in promoting religious freedom where most honorable pierre i talked about several trends in to us 11. when i read the report, i think about the people. i took about the men and women whom i have met, in vietnam, like uriah -- nibgeria -- people, men, women, youth, who are trying to practice their faith and raise their children and families freely. most of all, i think about the

people whose freedom has been taken away and the lives still at risk. and some whose names we cannot call. i think about the tibetans who have self-immolated, more than three dozen, and to these and many others in jail and in danger, and to the family of those who have lost loved ones, because of their faith, we dedicate this report. we dedicate ourselves to continue the fight for international religious freedom. that we take this opportunity to wish our warmest wishes and regards to muslims and around the world as they observe this month of ramadan. it is now my pleasure to receive your questions. thank you. >> report focuses on 2011.

when we have the launch of the average spring, the you have hope in 2012 the criticisms you have about certain countries will be alleviated? do you think things will change? >> the error spring continues to happen in places like egypt, still in transition. there president has declared he is gone to be more inclusive in his cabinet. he has declared that will be a woman, coptic christians, and we are looking as they form a new constitution to include religious freedom. we look for them to hold accountable those who are perpetrating these violent acts, and we are looking to them where

they can repeal laws that discriminate to do that. that is my answer to your question. there are transitions that our report, but we look to them to honor what they said they would do. >> and was looking at the executive summary, and i was wondering if he could expand on that comment on cuba, where you are saying there has been improvement in respecting religious freedom, but you also say there is significant restrictions. how do you reconcile those two statements to ? maybe they were gearing up to the visit by the pope, and that is why the improvements were there. can you elaborate? >> there are places where the government restricts religion and places where they are pragmatically open. the government in closes those groups to be able to travel

there and be able to have an opportunity after the pope must visit to engage with committees of fate. we are hopeful they will continue to open the door and work on their religious freedom issues. >> this report covers the situation in 2011. north korea had their leadership change at the end of last year. dec any sign of change in the situations and north korea, and what is the expectation for north korea? >> north korea continues to be on our country's of concern list. the situation is deplorable. we try to urge the government to improve their situation, but it is still deplorable and is not a strong religious freedom going forward. they are not focused there at all.

we're asking them to work on all the universal human rights, including religious freedom. >> the report -- want to ask about russia and religious freedom there. do you see a reduction in net in the last six to a months? >> russia continues to miss use the extremism law, and we're focusing on this continually. on the whole government approach, we urge their government not to miss use those laws and it here to universal human rights declaration. they still at the issue of the misuse of extremism laws, and people continue to monitor the situation. >> the question on iran, the you said and the report says

religious freedom further from an already egregious situation, but at least in the executive summary, some of the issues you mentioned, the restoration of the 20-year sentence for the and the continued incarceration of christian pastor, in the sense that does not suggest it is even worse than it was before. what else is significantly worse? >> it is also a country of particular concern and continues to be stagnant. we're concerned about an individual. july 8, is 1,000th day incarceration, the department least a statement for his release to iran. there are sanctions that have been imposed on them. 14 organizations and for individuals have had sanctions

upheld on then. we have repeatedly tried to monitor that situation. >> here it says it has deteriorated further from already egregious situation. you just said it was stagnant, neither better or worse. 1. deteriorated from 201 the situation is bad. there are religious minorities that are being detained, so we're looking at that situation closely. it continues to be a country a particular concern. >> on a conditional hearing last week, a representative said the united states should be taking a stronger approach of human rights and religious freedom with china. you mentioned sanctions that could be imposed.

taken that the situation has deteriorated further, religious freedom in china, what pressures aren't the state department considering against china to see improvement for this year? >> this past week the chinese human rights dialogue was held here, and i participated in that. it is a complicated situation where there are many conversations going on. we raised the religious freedom issue, with a number of peoples, and when you have more than three dozen it is a sign of desperation that the people are under. there are unregistered churches that do not have a chance to express their faith and belief. we continue to press the government in terms of freedom of expression, religion, and also just universal human rights.

that is a continuing conversation that we will not let up. >> you tell us what kind of response he got in these meetings? >> there was discussion, and the discussion will continue. as the department is ready to release the report in terms of what the results of those discussions were, i will give you that. thank you. >> what you constitute what is happening in syria? >> it is a tough situation. we are looking to oppose assad. we are looking for a government that will be inclusive of all minorities and all religions and citizens. they have to deal with human rights in general, but religious freedom, specifically. >> are they still the same in this report? >> in 2011, i refer you to the

report. >> [unintelligible] >> it is really deteriorating. until a post-assad regime, we will not be able to tell you how they need to move forward. >> [unintelligible] >> you meant the countries that are cpc's? >> they are the same countries, the same a countries. >> obviously, the situation with the coptic christians was a factor in the secretary's visit to egypt. i am wondering what assurance you have been given from president mursi -- does in the

report, the interim government did not in fact take actions against coptic christians. what assurances given by the president that he is gone to look at the situation, and to what extent could use aid a lever to make sure the government -- >> the secretary was recently there. she invited a number of groups, including religious groups, including coptic christians, to meet with her. i also have met with coptic christians here, more than 15 meetings. president mursi said in his new government he will include a coptic christian and a woman. we are looking for him to paula through on what his promise was. >> we have time for one more. the investor has to move on. [unintelligible] >> a question about china,

because earlier this year, in the state department's human report, it included [unintelligible] in this year's report for the first time. did you also cover this issue in this report, and how will you take measures to take steps to push couple -- push china? >> we're concerned not only with tibetans and then uighers, but also others as well. we are concerned as people -- that people of all faiths have the opportunity to express their fate. thank you. >> would you take any concrete measures to help improve the situation there? >> week urged the government not only to focus on -- but also the groups that i met, that i

stated previously, for all people of all based that their opportunity to express their religious freedom. we want people to have that opportunity. >> i apologize we did not have a chance to get to everybody. if you have things that were not -- -we can get back to you. >> thank you. >> secretary of state clinton will make remarks on the annual report on international religious freedom and point out this past year plus countries of particular concern. she speaks at the carnegie endowment today at 2:00 p.m. on

c-span. this morning, "washington journal" talked about a reporter about health care benefits. senior correspondent at kaiser health news. the big story today was 13 states cutting medicaid benefits with federal expansion at risk. when you talk about states' pension medicaid, what are they doing? guest: a lot of things. they're cutting programs and eligibility. there are also reducing

benefits and asking them to pay more for such things, like going to the emergency room, only allowing them to have home health benefits so many times per year. host: here is what kaiser health found. alabama is cutting doctors' and dentists' by 10%, limiting brand name drugs or most adults. and how much leeway is there to change the medicaid programs? is there a limit? guest: yes, there is. for the last couple of years, 2009, they have not been able to reduce the eligibility.

and they cannot make it harder for people to enroll in the program. but there are optional benefits to give the states leeway. again, states are going up to he poverty level. there are limits to that. the fed will have to approve of a fair amount of these. guest: here is an example of one thing making the cuts, hawaii, making the change. now it is only limited to a family of four making $30,000. where are you seeing the most changes?

guest: they have taken a number of steps in terms of provider fees. about 12% one year ago, it was another 6% cut every six months. alabama, as you mentioned, did a number of states. illinois is facing major budget problems, like a lot of states. medicate gets hit a lot when you come across it. host: we are talking about cuts the states are making to the medicaid program. guest: in 2014 the big part of the obama health care law takes effect. nationally, if you are below the poverty level, which for a family of four is 31,000, you

automatically qualify for medicaid. right now there are a bunch of different eligibility rules in different state. henning and if your a child, pregnant, or disabled, it is very simple. many people do not know that they are eligible because states have these byzantine rules in terms of determining eligibility. host: let's get to the phones and take a call. ken, pine bluff. caller: can you show me the [unintelligible] host: this is a good question. guest: this is a glass half full, glass half empty kind of question. 37 states are not cutting.

i do not believe that they were on the list, these 13 states that were cutting. there was alabama, colorado, connecticut, florida, hawaii, illinois, maryland. and wisconsin. some believe that this is good news. there is a lot of talk that they have not been able to afford medicaid going forward. but today we're looking at 37 states not cutting. they will call this good news and say that things are actually getting there. more than half of the states were cutting medicaid. in a sense it shows conditions around the country improving somewhat. host: are you seeing an ideological connection here?

some have been resistant, like governor rick scott. guest: ideology comes into it, to a degree, but it has to do with trying to balance the budget. california has been a big supporter of the health care law. they are looking to cut more payments to hospitals, looking to making it harder for people to go for free. illinois is a state that has looked to do some of the health- care laws for these financial challenges. they had to make these cuts as well.

more of what we are looking at right now is states having to cut their programs. host: good morning. caller: i wanted to make a statement. this is something that republicans are using as a ploy. they're using it as a ploy to make the president look bad. could you add to that? guest: let's talk about options that the states face. -- host: lets talk about options that the states face. guest: right now, states and federal government have been splitting costs. at least by 50%. under the expansion of health care law, 17 million more people will become eligible. there will be paying 100% of the expansion for the next three years. in the years following, the

states will begin to take up 10% of the costs. the fed said that this was a great bargain for the states. but it is not that easy. even if you are only paying 5%, 6%, or 10%. these are still being picked out and states worry that they do not have them. millions of people out there have qualified for medicaid, but for some reason did not sign up. they will have the individual mandate, where the people are required to carry insurance. we expect that there will be a lot of talk about the mandate. in terms of people that previously would have qualified, they will now be enrolling.

for those people the previous it would not have qualified, they will still have to pay their own traditional match, picking up 40% to 50%. host: is the obama administration concerned that there will be a group of poorer americans who are not covered? even though the goal was to get all americans covered? if they are porous, covered under medicaid, what about the things -- those who cannot afford to buy their own insurance? guest: a big reaction will be created by the supreme court's ruling in the case. before the supreme court it was expected that this would be a great deal, that all states would take it and it would be built in as a provision of the law.

they would build in all of the medicaid plans. the state would be giving up one-third of their annual budget. the supreme court ruled that that would be coercion. that it could not be done. over the next year, next 18 months, we will see the states decide. again, the fed is offering a lot of money. there are a number of republican-led states who have said no, we are not going to do it. states really have another year to decide. we could have some states expand.

we could have some the to not. the states that do, it will not be 133% in terms of medicaid, all the way up to 400%. you get to qualify for subsidies in this new state health insurance exchange. going on line to buy health care. host: when we say 133% of the poverty level, that is $130,000 for a family of four. -- $31m,000 for a familiy of four. medicaid, some states are making cuts to the program. here are the numbers to call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. robert, republican, new york. good morning. caller: the you for having me. i am a registered republican. quickly tell my father knew

henry kaiser, who was given the position of setting up when he was putting the system into place in california. he was a wonderful psychologist, but not good at working in an organization. the thing that makes our health care system so difficult to change is this huge, multibillion-dollar industry. each one should fighting for a share of the pie. that is the way that it is now. using many, many different, powerful lobbies, each of them fighting health-care reform. but many of the states that are

very opposed to the health care act to a terrible job of providing health care to their own people, like louisiana and texas. they do a bad job of providing public health, yet those governors are amongst the most rabid against putting in sensible reform. guest: thank you for the call. yes, henry kaiser was a major industrialist and his money was made available to a private family foundation -- i will quickly note, it is not related to kaiser permanente in any way. it is independent of that. but he is right, over the next year we will see hospitals and doctors pushing states to take the money into the expansion. they are going to say that this is good for people's health and

they are more likely to seek preventive health care. recent studies show the being on medicaid lowers your mortality rate. the number of states that have said they are against the law are ones that have not had good medicaid benefits. in the southwest they have -- they face a big crunch. medicaid is different in every state. how good the program is a really depends on where you live. host: louisiana is one of the states that is making cuts.

coast of this twitter message from jim -- -- host: this twitter message came in from jim. host: first of all, tell us what happens when a state like louisiana cuts reimbursements to doctors. how do doctors feel about it? what happens to patients? are there any repercussions? guest: doctors do not work for free. if they're going to get paid less, they will typically do a couple of things. again, getting down to a level

where the person probably stop seeing you patients. they will stop seeing existing, stops the new, and they may stop seeing medicaid patients altogether. sometimes hospitals get cut as well. hospitals may cut some programs because there revenue sources are stopping. with some hospitals, like one we found in new hampshire, the rates got low enough that it was not worthwhile to continue seeing medicaid patients. they had to tell them to go elsewhere. and basically left them less access for care. on the other hand, what the obama administration has done is put a lot of money into community health centers. they are a wonderful resources poor people, the uninsured,

even the insured to go for health care. you can get a lot from community health service centers, but it may affect you getting out. host: we are talking to phil galewitz, correspondent for kaiser health news. this recent headline about cutting health benefits in states, in addition to working in kaiser health, phil galewitz serves as a board member of health news in florida, a nonprofit. he has been covering the health beat for about 20 years. nixon, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i am on social security disability. i feel that where i apply for

medicaid, i tried to get it but i did not get it. i was being refused monday by $200 when it is $1,200 minimum to get this medicaid. just trying to understand why. why can we not get any help from anyone else? how come the government cannot help us? thank you very much. guest: you will be getting help in 2014. but that has been one of the problems with medicaid. as your income changes slightly, you go on and off the program. some states in the last couple of years have made it easier. no matter what happens to you and your salary over one year, you will still be eligible for the program.

but not all states have done that. obviously, some states have seen this as a cost. cost is a big issue. that is why if you miss out by a few dollars, the state will look at it as an expense. host: chicago, republican line. hello. caller: i have a couple of points. every morning i sit here and listen to callers calling in and i hear the same mantra, poor mr. obama, everyone hates him. evil republicans want him to look bad. in this situation, take a look at the reaction. california and arizona, two of the most liberal utopian states are going broke.

all that i can say is that for everyone who has been screaming and demanding for government to take over your health care, welcome to the future. mr. obama made it perfectly clear during his campaign that a pain pill will do just fine. welcome to your future. thank you. guest: thank you for the call. you are right. liberal states are showing that they cannot afford this program. costs are bad around the country. i do not think that you can separate politics from policy. a lot of people out there want to reduce government investment in health-care. that may go into whether the states expand or not in in 2014.

for years they have had trouble balancing a budget. they have had difficulty. one of the problems is not that the program has been inefficient to operate -- in fact, there are so many more people in the program right now, it is the pay providers who have helped them. so many more millions of people are in the program because they washed out of health benefits. host: recently we had a story from kaiser health news about saving money in illinois, where they limited it to four prescription drugs topping the medicines that would recover.

host: tell us more about what patients deal with as a repercussion. guest: a lot of states would say that a lot more drugs are now available than generics, which cost less. it is another move to get them to take those brands. there is not much. it hurts. obviously, it hurts patients

who are taking multiple brand names, like in the case of alabama. id is another place to cut. it does not heard everyone. it could hurt some. it puts doctors and patients in difficult positions, because some work with patients to have asthma, diabetes, and it can be tricky to get the right drugs or the right dosage. right now they're being told they will not have all of this coverage. it is another cost. states have tried to say it is a matter of saying they are throwing things against a wall to see what will work. they have tried to pick certain, brand name drugs over others. they are trying all sorts of

different ways to pay providers. it seems like medicaid has been one big experiment for the last several years. it is an ongoing battle drugs is just now one of the latest issues and it's relatively -- in the last 10 years have we really seen states put these limits on monthly drugs. host: karen, independent caller. good morning. caller: my question was on being that we all pay so much for insurance, employees pay a lot for insurance, schools pay a lot for insurance. why don't we just fund our hospitals and cut the middleman, cut the insurance company right out of the equation and just give the money right to the hospitals and reform like the medical malpractice.

and take care of patients other than filing all this paperwork, hiring staff. it's such a waste of money. if you're sick, you go. and maybe there's a co-pay or something. but considering how much we're all paying for health insurance and how we're bankrupting our states to try to provide medicare, why not just cut insurance out of the whole program and just fund our hospitals? guest: that's a good question. thank you. the simple answer is some people think hospitals are the problem and we're giving hospitals all this money and hospitals have incentives, financial incentives and to give you as much treatment and fill up their hospital beds and keep you in their beds for as long as possible and the argument on the other side is insurers will argue they've done their jobs as controlling costs and giving oversight to whether or not

you're getting the appropriate care. with medicaid, it's split right now. and aetna, for example, they oversee the care you get in medicaid. kind of similar to what you see as an employer and you're getting private insurance. and more and more states are saying we can't control medicaid costs anymore and we're not even sure if we're doing a very good job of quality of care. they're hiring these private insurers and bringing them in charge of your care and honestly, it's been a mixed bag. in terms of how they control costs and how they improve quality, even though millions of people have been added to it, it's uncertain whether or not this has really worked or not but this is the trend that states are going because it gives states some sort of helps their budget a set amount of money and if they can treat

people on medicate to that amount of money, then -- medicaid that amount of money, that's all the state will spend. so that's one big reason why the states have really move to the medicaid manage care and you're going to see more of that regardless of what happens to the federal health care law. host: we have a call from connecticut. let's go to a tweet. chris writes in saying -- guest: we want to be careful when we talk about cutting medicaid. we're not cutting the whole program. certain limited amount of people in that state but connecticut, like a number of state is facing

financial issues and they're looking to see where they may have some place to limit to some degree who will qualify. and again, this may just be some short term thing because in 2014, some of the things that are being cut now may be restored in 20 14. and that's why the cuts today are a big issue. as with pointed out in the story, this happened each time the economy goes down. so it's nothing new. what's new this year is we're getting closer to the expansion. so people worry about how can we -- how come we're cutting and won't this hurt the clause? if we want hospitals to expand their services, how medicaid is going to look bad to cut them now? and raising the questions of some states saying we can't afford it and here's an example of what happens when states say they can't afford it and here's what they do.

the 2014 expansion goes through, it may not eliminate some of these things. we may expand the eligibility but people have raised the question if we keep paying doctors less money, there won't be enough doctors in the program. just having the made cade is is it really going to mean as much? host: you mention that states are trying things out. they're trying out whether cutting money to providers is an effective way to cut costs and filter people's needs as tightening up eligibility. how much are states talking to each other and how much are they talking to the federal government? is kathleen, the secretary of health and human services in regular contact with the administrators of these programs and these states? guest: we hear that they are. we're not privy to what these conversations are going. we would love to hear more but the feds have told the states over in written letters and documents in the last several weeks that they are open and

they want to give states as much flexibility as they can but states also have been clam sanderg want to know more -- they want to hear more from h.h.s. one of the big question is will states have to go all the way to 133% of the poverty level or will they have an option to say just expand up to 110% of the level. if states expand, will they later be when the states have to start paying their share, can they drop out? these are a couple of questions that we've been waiting the last few weeks for h.h.s. to determine. host: here's a story that phil galewitz wrote --

guest: states have been pretty clear about them that they can't afford it. if you read some of the letters that rick perry aptly sent to the feds, it reads more political than policy and he's trying to make statements and people raising the questions of is he looking for his next presidential am decisions four years from now? and the feds have given some answers to states but there's still a lot more that we haven't heard from the federal government on the stories. but again, the key point is with medicaid, there is some time. so states need to know soon but a lot of people aren't thinking -- states won't have to decide until next summer if they're going to expand medicaid. that's different from the health

insurance exchanges. the feds really need to know by a week after election day if the states are going to move forward with the exchanges because this is a brand-new thing around the country and if the states aren't going to move forward, the feds will say we'll set up the exchange in your state. that's something the feds need a lot more heads-up. host: phil galewitz with kaiser health news. prior to that, he worked at the palm beach post and during that time, he was a kaiser media fellow for a year. he's worked at the associated press in new york and in harrisburg, pennsylvania, at the patriot news. let's hear from melvin a democrat if washington. guest: i'm -- caller: i live in florida now. i'm vacationing in washington. i find that totally ironic that he would be one cutting medicaid

proposals in this new program. they spent the most money in the history of medicare and care. -- medicare and medicaid. and then the people elected him as governor in florida. my insurance and health care plan is the same as the congressman and i do not get all name brands. there are several of them i was given and they turn concerned and put me on generic. i was with kaiser before i left because it's only in places in florida and georgia that i can go to. but they also carry a lot of generic drugs rather than the name brands. so that is nothing unusual. and lastly, before the lady was talking about the appeal.

that's why people in florida voted -- you do not lift him and you take it to whatever to be true. they need to sit down and get some education. thank you very much. guest: thanks, melvin, for your call. yes, as most people know, rick scott came from a health initiative background where he ran h.c.a., what is the nation's largest hospital chain. he ran that in the 90's. a -- 1990's. a tremendous growth. the hospital chain was involved in a major medicare settlement over some case of fraud -- cases of fraud. rick scott was not indicted with that. but rick scott's been pretty clear even before the health care law that he sees government as too much of a player in health care and he's against any expansion in health care. so to some degree, what he's

been saying here on the medicaid expansion sort of fits what his policies have been for a number of years where he wants to cut government out of health care and he wants to see less of a role for them. so there's a question here is is this a matter of if he's just against the law and he sees this as a way to continue to -- even now it's been held by the supreme court or is he him sticking to his ideological guns and saying medicaid is already big enough and we don't want to expand it i further. host: jack from corpus christi. caller: i'm addressing to one of what your callers have said earlier being in florida. i happen to grown up there when i was a young boy. i was talking about this with one of my childhood friend. his name is brandon kelly.

and we were talking about how the -- how florida now has been cutting funds in the hospitals and i look up this stat and it just bewildered me. they cut funding in the hospitals. host: cutting funding in hospitals. guest: yes. that's a big part. the hospitals make up the biggest chunk of medicaid. so when states are looking to reduce medicaid spending, hospitals are the first place they look at. they also look at hospitals because they're big institutions. so they look at hospitals that they can spread out these costs. when medicaid cuts hospitals, it's not an even cutcht it's typically in the inner cities, the safety institutions, mostly medicaid patients. suburban hospitals are not -- it's not an even split. and so far, i mean, hospitals have been able to handle it to some degree, these cuts and

that's why hospitals continue to cut it. hospitals will be -- mean more cut and they'll have to bear and cut services but so far, it's been an area that politicians and including those in florida continue to look at hospitals as an area of that's where the money is. so that's where they're going to try to cut the costs. host: let's go to a floridian in forth richie. hi, andy. caller: i was a volunteer worker at the world trade center and i have a few illnesses from that and i have health coverage because i worked for the subway for 35 years. i have one thing to say. always remember how you vote because you could be doing very well one day and the next day, not doing so well. you may need medicaid someday. always think of that.

unless you're a multi-, multi- millionaire. but if you're just a regular working person, think about medicaid. think you you vote. thank you. guest: thanks for your call. you're right. a lot of people don't think about medicaid in the same way they think about their sister program, medicare. if you live long enough, you'll qualify for medicare. the years medicaid hasn't gotten much of attention. a lot of people look at it as a welfare program. for years, it really didn't get the attention. it's sort of the little sister of medicare. the birthday of both programs that were created in 1966. that's when medicare and medicaid came around. and more attention has been paid to medicaid than almost ever before because of what the expansion and the option now that states have to the biggest expansion of medicaid ever. and you're right. you never know when people are

going to lose a job or lose their insurance and they're going to have to qualify for it. medicaid is largely a lot of children who qualify for the program and many states, kids can qualify when their parents are not because many states make it easier for kids to qualify or pregnant women to qualify and that's why those are the large majority of the people who are in the program today. with the expansion, a lot of parents and a lot of adult who is don't have kids will now be able to be eligible for the program as well. so it's a good program that's helped millions of people. does it have its problems? you betcha. and the lack of providers in some areas, questions about do people get the quality of care? they always need in the oversight but for many people, medicaid is a lifesaver that they cannot live without. host: a final comment by tweet. a question comes in to us from an oversight g.o.p. can you think about the establishment of medicare and the medicaid innovation with

c.m.s.? guest: sure. that's received millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. to enable states to try new things, to try new payment delivery models. and that's been one of the questions going forward is how can we make this program more efficient? the system has been medicaid pays doctors and hospitals directly for each treatment. some people think that just drives more unnecessary treatment and drives costs higher. so a lot of states want to experiment with different ways of paying giving a hospital of what we call bundle payment, one payment for all the services that a patient may need, the prehospital of hospital and after a surgery and if they get all the money altogether at once, hospitals and doctors will find a way of splitting it up and that would be a more sufficient way. that would be one example and there's a lot of different ways that states want to experiment, yet, you need money to do that

and this innovation center is helping states to do that. host: the headline in "u.s.a. today" is 13 states to pinch medicaid benefits which is put the federal expansion of the medicaid program at risk. you can find similar storieses at the kaiser health news website. our guest, phil galewitz here, correspondent for kaiser health news. thank you for coming in. guest: thank you. >> this is the last week of work for congress until their august break. the house meets at 2:00 eastern for a brief session. there will be no legislative work on the agenda today. we'll have live coverage of the house here on c-span. later this week, lawmakers will work on extending expiring tax cuts as well as starting a review of the tax code. and the farm bill. we talked to a reporter about what's in that bill. >> how much of the nation's farmland is being affected by the current heat and drought? >> well, the usda added about 76

additional counties last week bringing to a total of 1,300-plus counties declaring them natural disaster areas because of the drought. and that's over 31 states. it's particularly hard hit in places like iowa, kansas, nebraska, places like that and that's where the bulk of our soybean, corn, and wheat production are and those crops are being heavily hit by the drought and the livestock production there is also being heavily hit. >> what did speaker boehner said on friday about possible house action in the coming weeks? >> speaker barren said the -- boehner said the house would begin working legislation to prepare some type of disaster relief and it's unclear whether that's going to be an entire

farm bill or is it going to be a stand-alone provision that would help particularly livestock producers because they have been hit hardest to some degree by the drought. there were provisions in the 2008 farm bill that were still under that would have provided some relief to livestock producers but those provisions expired last year. so there is increased pressure for the house to do something. the senate passed the farm bill earlier and there was home that the house might do so but so far, they have not brought it to the floor for a vote. >> is there any pressure for the house to pass some short-term measure at least to the farm bill or is i going to fall in the category of disaster resleeve? >> well there, are a couple of options and when i talked to the house agriculture committee yesterday and talked to some

people in the leadership, there were several options that were being considered, one is a stand-alone disaster bill that would provide some stormy relief to those areas hard hit by the drought. and the second thing is an extension of the current farm bill which could be six months or a year that would extend it. it expires in 2008 -- i mean september 30th, but they would just extend that for another year and authorize those programs that expire last year that would help those livestock producers. the other thing is the house could simply just act on is own version of the farm bill that was passed out of committee earliest month, but so far, the house leadership had not brought it to the floor for a vote and there was thought that nothing would happen going into the august recess but the drought

has changed that. >> in your talks with members of the agriculture committee and department officials, are there any indication with how much the drought problem is expected to become? >> they're taking taking a wait-and-see approach. there is some forecast for some rain if that area that may help in the drought-stricken areas that may help so i beans, corn, not so much, but it's they're taking a wait-and-see. they don't have any estimates of what the damage could be at this point. >> thank you for having us. >> thank you. >> the farm bill is scheduled for debate this week. the last week before congress goes on its august break, you can watch the debate as well as extending expiring tax cuts and other tax-related legislation this week here on c-span. the house meets at 2:00 eastern for a pro forma session.

we will have live coverage of that pro forma session on c-span. more now on what's coming up in congress this week from this morning's "washington journal." host: paul cane is congressional reporter for "the washington post." thanks for being here this morning. guest: sure thing. host: congress has this week to get work done before the recess we often see a big drama unfold before they get ready to leave down. are you expecting that this time around? guest: oddly enough, i don't think it will be nearly as dramatic as some years past. in 2009, there was a rush to get the health care bill out of the house energy and commerce committee. that went down to the very last day and there are all sorts of crazy meetings late into the night. last year, we were deeting with the debt ceiling hike and all sorts of high drama. this time around, it's an election year. so they have really dialed back their expectations and what they're trying to pass and they've gotten an few of the

must-pass things already done this summer. so looking ahead, you've got a couple of things that they are trying to get done on the house side, they're going to have votes on competing tax plans. the democratic plan is to extend the bush era tax cuts for everyone except those making under $250,000. the senate has already approve that by just a couple of vote margin. the house is going to reject that and approve the republican plan to extend the tax cuts for everyone, including the most wealthy. that is going to be their sort of major task of the week. the senate is taking up the bill to try to improve the nation's cybersecurity from computer hackers. it's unclear whether or not they're going to be able to get through all the big key amendments. beneath that surface, there are a couple of issues that are lurking and the drought in the midwest and in farm country has basically wreak havoc out there

on their economy and there has been a farm bill that's been languishing in the house for quite some time. that's probably the other must-pass item. and they're still postal reform that is lurking out there. a couple of potential defaults would set in by the postal service. one, starting on wednesday if nothing's done, but it's unclear whether there's momentum in the house to get it done. host: do you like to -- if you like to talk about any of these issues to call are on your screen -- about how many days left of work in washington does congress have before the election? guest: we are looking at 18 days

left, this week and then guy to on a five-week break that is maintain to be a sort of work period back home and also for the republican and democratic national conventions and then they're back in about mid september and because of a couple of different issues including jewish holidays and other plan breaks, there's just 13 days in september and early october. and at that point, the only thing left that they'll be trying to do most likely, is a six-month extension of government funding. they're trying to work the details out now so that's ready in september when they come back. but mostly from here till election day, the focus is going to be campaigning for those, you know, 50 to 60 house races that are going to determine the majority and eight to 10 senate races that are going to determine who has the majority next year. host: a recent story in the

national journal, a new senate by the republicans on energy legislation. and it says senate republicans are not pretending that new legislation that they introduced last thursday is meant for passage in this congress. instead, the senator says the bill represents the generation they would push. how much of the work that's being done before they add out in the august recess is about laying the groundwork for effective messaging back home if guest: i would say just about all of it. everything that they're working on right now is about either messaging to try to give the people a clear choice of what they would do if given full control of washington next year, or the other side of that is they're positioning themselves for what could be an amazingly important lame duck session in which you're going have so many issues being decided in terms of taxes, the automatic spending cuts that are coming through last year's debt law known as

quest ration. i hate saying that word. it's very confusing to people. there has been a lot of positioning for that session. right now, there's not a lot other than the sort of short checklist that i just rattled off earlier. there's not a lot that they're even attempting to do. host: paul cane, congressional reporter with "the washington post." let's go to massachusetts where christina is an independent caller. hi. caller: hi. the reason i'm calling is, you know, all i hear anymore on tv is what -- how the government in the news and everybody is trying to divide the american people. it's like he's -- we're so divided. and in fighting with each other, is the dem cat's dangling carrots in front of you and promising they'll give you the world. the republicans, they say they'll fight for our rights but

they keep their mouths shut. nobody cares about us. reporters want to be our newest prophets so we'll listen only to them. but in the end, all you're doing is trying to destroy america and it is dying. host: christina, what would you do to change things? caller: get all new people. term limits. you want to make a law, live with it. none of these people live with any of the laws. you know, nobody fights to make sure our education is the best in the world. it's would be the worst now, all right? and we sit back and oh, oh, make things better for the teacher. what about our kids? our kids are our future but wait, wait until the next election. wait until after the election. what about now? host: you have a lot of concern and anger over what's happened. do you see the senator wrestle

with that? guest: it's fascinating because we are in a state, i think national journal and others have quantify this statistically about the most conservative lawmakers are more conservative than ever, the most liberal are more liberal than they've been in a long time. so there is an amazing amount of people call polarization and that goes to christina's point about the way she feels like people are trying to divide them. at the same time, the country itself has never been more narrowly divided. there's a really good chance that the senate is going to end up in a 50-50 deadlock with, you know, whoever ends up winning the white house having the tie-breaking vote and when this weird point in which the closer the margins, the more narrowly divided the country is, we're almost more -- people feel more polarized by it all.

i think if you see the senate still retain control by democrats and the house still run by republicans, this is an issue that i think they're going to have to try and tackle next congress. they're going to have to withi a newly-elected president, whether it is a second term for obama or first term for romney. i think there will have to be a coming to grips with this and reaching compromises on some big deals. >> mcclatchy did a pool and a story with it. his uncle sam helping are hurting the economy. it says the -- the quote people who say things like congress needs to work for compromises. but he reports --

guest: well, you were talking earlier about the texas senate race. the primary is on tuesday. there you have sort of an old fashion establishment conservative in lt. governor dewhurtst and ted cruz is the new dynamic conservative wing of the republican party. back in late may, they had of their first run of primary balloting. they had about 1.5 million people voting in that race and duhurtst came out on top. he did not have% so in texas there is a runoff. now they expect 350,000 people. those 350,000 people are part of what you referred to as, stand on principle. that is why a lot of people thing cruz is the favored right

now. what you get as sort of the primaries become more decided by just the narrow swath of the 350,000 texans who are going to vote tuesday, is i think you get a more hardened, more principled group of people on the right and on the left. it makes of that sort of bridging the divide a heck of a lot more difficult than it would be if you had more participation from all corners, especially if centrists and independent voters. host: let's get another caller. democratic caller right here from washington. caller: the point i and trying to make is the democrats do not know how to explain these tax cuts. the tax cut is for $250,000 of your income. of the to 50 -- $250,000 of

income. if you make about that, you still get the tax cut. it is supposed to be for everybody. the 10 to say it is not for everybody, for people under $250,000. somebody just doesn't know how to talk. guest: what the caller is referring to is in short hand we sometimes say the tax cuts that the democrats are trying -- tax cuts for those making $250,000 and under. it makes it sound as if lebron james -- making about $25 million to $35 million is not going to get a tax cut. in reality, lebron james gets a tax cut on the first $250,000 that he would be making. the rest of his income would go up to 39%, as it was in the

1990's. my colleague as a recline has written about this. -- ezralklein written about this. the average millionaire would see a $10,000-$11,000 benefit under the democratic proposal and under the republican proposal the average billionaire would see $70,000 benefit. the argument is how big of a cow -- tax cut to give the millionaires and above. host: we see a headline. democratic tax plan may get a vote in the house. what are you expecting to happen? guest: senate democrats said of as a vote on the democratic bill. john boehner has said, well, sure. we will give you a vote and we will beat it. the truth is, they have 242 republicans. very few republicans are expected to support the democratic plan.

they have not officially determined it, but they expect to, among a series of options they will vote on probably thursday, will be the democratic bill and we will save -- see a very polarizing vote, almost all the democrats voting for it and all the republicans voting against it. they will not that down before they move on to passing the republican bill. host: paul kane, congressional reporter from "the washington post." republican, arizona. good morning. what do you have to say? caller: my question is, what do the obama administration or the romney administration plan to do with the gas prices will are soaring across america? i read an article that in china they are doing some program where they find a way to reduce the gas prices. i want to know what is going to happen with the gas prices

everywhere. guest: the caller raises a good point. i think the average person of varices $3.50 or so a gallon and things it is too high. the reality is, it up here, they were bracing for -- $4 or $4.50 or $5 even. there was a price spike in january for february which is very unusual. usually you have the price hits that comes in the summer, summer driving. that came early and it still a lot of fears that he would see gas prices soaring. the reality there has been an increase in output. slowly but surely, the price has started to come down and flat and out in mid $3 range. it has taken out some of the wind of the sales for republicans who wanted to make it a central issue new don't hear them talking nearly as much about the keystone pipeline, which was a real focus for the

last fall and early winter. i think by the convention you will return -- they will return to that because it is an issue independent voters will be framing their votes in the fall. we will see how prices go up or down in the final few weeks before the election, whether it really resonates. host: a story in "the washington post" has this headline. the house ready to take of drought relief. it says -- what are the chances these are going to go anywhere? guest: this is the one piece of legislation that has moved from sort of the back burner right to the front burner because of drought relief.

initially, the senate had spent -- had passed a bill that would save between $23 billion to $30 billion and the house was just going to move the bill through the committee. this was just part of the idea of where they were trying to adjust the positioning for the fall when they have a lame-duck session after the election. and it was all about bidding about whose bill would save more and being able to have it in reserve as they would go through these talks about taxes and the automatic spending cuts. instead, this drought has really hit the midwest. both for economic reasons and genuinely trying to help out the farmers, and political reasons because the midwest has become a key battleground in both the senate races, house races, and presidential. i think they have basically decided they have to do something rather than waiting for the fall. i think you are going to see action on this this week. the senate could in turn approve

it and you would at least have that issue lifted for about a year or so. and you would get some sort of relief to farmers in the midwest right away. host: let's look at some numbers and the story. the cost of the legislation, which includes disaster assistance would be $621 million stretched out over 10 years, paid for by reductions in conservation programs and direct payments to farmers. house republican leaders have been reluctant to bring a new farm bill to the floor over concerns it could go down as an embarrassing defeat. some gop conservatives object to the cost. nearly $100 billion a year but 80% going to the food stamp program. the other issues come into play. guest: as often happens in the last 18 months, you have a hard- line group of republican conservatives who really do not want to see any deficit growth,

and the fight on these issues often becomes how you pay for it, how the have an offsetting cuts to finance the legislation. the food stamp issue has always been one that has befuddle the public a lot -- befuddled the public a lot and lawmakers to. people do not realize the usda the minister's the food stamp program and it is an automatic program that you can see when the economy is hard hit, lots of unemployment, there is just growth and spending on food stamps. that has really angered a lot of the fiscally conservative caucus. host:ben from new york on the independent line. caller: mr. kane, last week or perhaps the week before there was a bill introduced by representative paul to audit the

fed. i am wondering if any action was taken, how the vote when and where the why house stood on that. guest: that a bill passed i believe on the thursday afternoon. a colleague of mine from cnn coined the phrase, dr. no finally got a yes. ron paul has been pushing this bill to audit the fed for quite some time and it did pass the house by a fairly partisan vote. i did not know the exact numbers of the top of my head. his son rand paul, senator from kentucky, is pushing the bill in the senate. as of now it is show it -- sort of an allied air issue for the senate and probably not going to receive a vote there unless senator paul -- he has been pretty tough in his fight so far. so, he may try to get a vote on

it as an amendment to one of the bills that they will have to tackle in the next two to three months. host: from fox news, the final vote was 327-98. eight co-sponsors, democrats, actually voted against it. caller: ice -- guest: i stand corrected. a big win for dr. paul. probably one of his most and for the legislative victories so far. will become law? probably not. but the issue about the fed, its handling of the bailout, the role in the bailout of four years ago continues to resume with a very intense group of voters. i think you will see -- this issue will not die. and ron paul is retiring but rand paul will be here to keep carrying the flag. host: syracuse, new york. republican caller: i am curious

why they did not do anything about the keystone pipeline. it has been up five or six times and president obama seems to think it is a big joke and does nothing about the. i am just wondering why. caller: i thing -- guest: i think that will be an issue that will be decided by the presidential campaign. if mitt romney wins, it is going to be flipped over. the senate will likely change hands and i think you will basically see that it will get implemented. i think that is something that will be completely determined by the presence of campaign. it is just you are in a deadlock situation in which the senate does not want to pass or improve the plan. there are plenty of votes for it in the house and not enough votes in the senate. if romney wins the presidential, i think you will see the pipeline will be built. host: jan, independent caller from atlanta, georgia. -- jim.

caller: thank you. what i wanted to bring up, we are on the second anniversary of the black man who was beat up in the town hall in south st. louis and nothing has been done about that. the democrats had the seiu pick him out of the crowd and they beat him up and if there had not been people in the crowd they probably would have beat him to death. also, the black leaders of all look the other direction. will we see it again this time? i would like your comment, thank you. guest: i am not entirely familiar with the issue you brought up. is think what you will see broadly in terms of race relations issues, this is something that obama and senate democrats have pushed. you have definitely seen a movement in terms of civil rights issues, gay rights issues.

i think that is another issue that will be decided largely by the presidential campaign. host: when you look at the presidential election and all of these things that are being delayed until after -- not just the presidential election, but the senate and house as well -- refreshing for us what else is being put to the back burner until we see who wins control of both the why house as well as the bodies ofgress? guest: you have the expiring bush tax cuts that we talked about. first enacted in 2001 and in 2003. they expire december 31. the automatic spending cuts, sequestration, the first hint would take effect early next year. in addition, a whole slew of tax benefits for all sorts of various entities -- alternative energy tax breaks, tax breaks for everything from bow and arrow makers to research and

development. all of this stuff is coming in line december 31 and because of the deadline last summer and the ability to strike a grand bargain, they basically decided that they would take it to the people. that is what barack obama said to eric cantor famously in the middle of last summer in the big stand up at the why house. obama of mentally was tired what cantor was singing and setback in his chair and said we can take it to the people. i think it is generally -- for the most part what we will see happen. the break down at the capitol and the weather holds the presidency is going to have a real and a van a judge over determining the outcome. host: are you seeing behind-the- scenes negotiations and talks going on when it comes to decisions about the fiscal cliff, when it comes to raising the debt limit for dealing with

spending -- spending issues? guest: what we are seeing on the hill right now are the initial talks. some committee chairmen or subcommittee chairman talking, putting out ideas, floating ideas. right now, starting today, john mccain, lindsey graham, and kelly i got -- ayotte, three senate republicans will barnstorm three swing states, north carolina, virginia, and finishing in new hampshire tomorrow, to raise attention to the whole issue of potential cuts to the military. people are doing these things, but we are not at a point where they are sitting down in a room the way we would normally see, with really, be serious negotiations. generally waiting on that for november and december. host: paul kane is congressional reporter for "the washington

post" and prior to that he covered senate leadership for "roll call." covered the ethical scandals. also worked for "the record" in hackensack, new jersey. among his stories was covering the fbi and justice of renegotiation into the democrat from new jersey, the gift for cash scandal and he covered the gingrich revolution and earlier in his career was a copy editor for "china daily," an english- language newspaper in beijing. republican. mesa, arizona. good morning. caller: my question is, what do you guys see the economy moving? where would it be the next four-eight years question of the you see it growing? getting worse? it is pretty bad. host: what do you think. how do you think it relates to what congress is doing? caller: i just don't think

congress is looking out for the best interest of the middle- class and lower class people. how do i put this? they care to much about themselves. that is just my opinion. i am interested to see what mr. kane has to say. guest: i think in terms of long term, where they see economic growth going. friday they came out with a number that showed 1.5% growth in gdp. the reality is most economists see a fairly middling recovery continuing for several more years. there has not been -- there aren't that many people predicting a big of new hiring -- joly of new hiring. won some people taken change that could be a grand bargain that could allow for some

entitlement reform, tax reform. a total change to the corporate tax structure. and it would create, they say, long-term confidence in just sort of where everything was going in terms of the government, government debt. that, they think, might spur a lot of the money that corporations -- a lot of corporations have been quite profitable, but they are uncertain. they don't know whether we are headed toward some sort of major debt crisis like greece or spain. but if there is long-term confidence in where we are going to be the next 5-10 years, some of that money might come off the sidelines. i think what we will also have to see is, as part of any sort of big, grand bargain to avoid the fiscal cliff, i think democrats will probably want to push some sort of extra stimulus money to try to pump into the

economy for the short term. that might help. host: besides the fiscal cliff, there is a question of funding the government into the next year. tell us about the c.r. guest: the continuing resolution. basically the fiscal year runs october 1 through september 30. usually we get into the end of september and they only have a couple of the 12 appropriations bills done that sort of fund the federal government. you have to get into a fight about trying to keep the government open on previous year levels. this year, as part of the overall lack of ambition, we are seeing that taking shape in july. one veteran of the senate said to me it is sort of like punting on second down as opposed to the normal fourth down. there has been some sort of

agreement -- it is not finalized yet -- but they are trying to agree that they would do a six- month extension of government funding at the levels that they agreed to in last year's debt ceiling law. that is a little more than most conservatives wanted to spend. but they seem to have signed off on this in-house so that they would put the issue off into next year and the new deadline would be march 30. their hope is that they would have president romney to negotiate with and a republican- controlled senate to negotiate with, and they will be able to enact spending cuts. if president obama wins reelection and democrats still hold the senate, then they probably made a bad bargain on their behalf. host: boring with all of the,

the we need to pass a budget? a story -- house leaders on a continuing resolution that would fund government into next year, eliminating the threat of government shut down. we had a representative of levin on c-span's newsmakers. a reporter asked him, the ranking member on ways and means, what he thought they would vote on a cr. >> the government runs out of money september 30. do you favor a six-month cr to carry the government through that period? >> if necessary. we can't have another potential meltdown. we have to extend the cr, and if it takes six months, it might be the wise thing to do. host: what does it mean to hear

congressman levin saying we may have to do it and it may just be one of the temporary measures question on guest: i think he basically said we can't have another meltdown and that is basically the key. there is still a lot of exhaustion from what congress went through last year and the idea that they pushed it so close to the end of the debt limit and almost went over the cliff. you saw the markets reacting at this time a year ago, going down. there was a downgrade. i think there is still crisis exhaustion. and they know in november and december you got all these other things. they don't want to add anything else on top of that to make the cliff and the speaker. so, if they can't push off government funding -- can push of government funding until middle of march next year, they will want to do that to not at

trauma and anxiety to what was already a lame duck. host: kathy on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to offer a bit of consolation to the american people we were calling in to shows like this because we are very frustrated and almost feel pulverized by the situation we are now faced with perry we have two candidates and everyone seems to agree neither one of them are offering us in real, positive outlook for our future. i would suggest to everyone that this is a contrivance to get us to a place where we would forget the fact that these are our representatives. these are the people as we

selected to represent us. to the rest of the world, these people represent the american people. this is what we need to be concerned about. how we appear to the rest of the world. we are what the world watches to see how we are going to perform and what is supposed to be a system of government that is governed by the people. our representatives, it is very obvious, are not representing us as a people. the people are frustrated. we need to ask ourselves how did we get here and how did -- do we get out of this. there is a very good article i would suggest as everyone go google, "the anger agenda." don't fall for it. guest: she is summing up a lot of the frustration we have heard from several different callers

from several the and parts of the country this morning. there is just this feeling of a divided between people and their representatives. and how you bridge that has become such a critical issue for them. i don't know the answer right now. there needs to be more in beijing and by voters. part of it means getting engaged in the primary process. >> live now to secretary of state hillary clinton about to make remarks on the annual report on international religious freedom. [applause] >> thank you very, very much. thank you very much. it is indeed a pleasure to join you here today to talk about an issue that shapes the lives of people worldwide as much as any other religious -- other.

religious freedom. i would like to thank jessica mathews not just for that introduction but more importantly for her service for many years, and in particular for leadership as the president for the carnegie endowment for international peace. 15 years ago, jessica was writing about trends that were just then beginning to get people's attention. like the rise of information technologies and the creation of global networks that existed outside of government. she said then that of those changes would shape global events in ways both good and bad and that government would have to adapt if they wanted to stay on top of global change. well, she was certainly right about that. indeed, i will work to make the integration of new technologies and outreach to civil society groups and the private sector, diaspora communities and other

non-governmental organizations a hallmark of my time as secretary of state that it is not an afterthought. it is not an ad on. but it is integrated into the work that we do. because clearly, the work we do will be influenced and affected by all of those non-state actors. i want to acknowledge two people. michael roseman, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, -- michael posner. someone i have worked closely with. and suzanne johnson quote, ambassador at large for international religious freedom, so when i also had not only the privilege of working with in the state department but in one of my previous incarnations as a senator from new york. curtis and bill, one of my top advisers on civil society on

this issue. i am grateful for their efforts. and all the representatives, from congress and embassies, members of the religion and foreign-policy working group and others to recognize and are committed to the importance of this issue and what it represents. earlier today, the state department released its latest international religious freedom report. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speeblinger's rooms, washington, d.c., july 30, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable adrian smith to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks forgiving us another day. we ask you a special blessing -- we ask your spess blessing upon the members of this speaker's house,, as so many americans have repeated to them, there is great concern for our future. give all members wisdom, patience, discernment and courage to use the information they have to broader understanding of national concerns and the responsibility they have been given to lead this nation into a balanced and secure future. grant a double portion of a great profit spirit. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stand as i proved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 27, 2012, at 11:54 a.m. that the senate concur in the house amount to the bill, senate 1959, that the senate agree to,

without amendment, house concurrent resolution 90, house concurrent resolution 133, house concurrent resolution 134 with best wished, i am, signed, sincerely, robert f. breeze, deputy clerk. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 30, 2012, at 11:10 a.m. that the senate passed senate 1299. with best wished, sometime, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house

of representatives that i have been served with a trial subpoena for testimony issued by the 27th judicial district court in the parish of st. landry, louisiana, in connection with a civil action currently pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, joan finley, district director, representative charles boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore thortonberry on thursday, july 26, 2012. the clerk: h.r. 5872, a bill to require the president to provide a report detailing the sequester required by the budget control act of 2011 on january 2, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands

adjourned until noon tomorrow for morning hour debate. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation wit is like for many who live without this freedom. in the harshest places, certain religions are banned completely. a believer can be sentenced to death. strict laws ban blasphemy and definition of religion. when your words are interpreted as a violation of those lost -- laws, you can be sentenced to

death. violence towards religious minorities often goes unpunihsed -- unpunished. the message is clear -- if your beliefs do not have government approval, beware. the same message is delivered by governments that seek the illusion of freedom by creating official, state-sanctioned religious associations. they say, look, our people can practice whichever of these pre- approved faiths they choose. but if people are caught going outside of these associations to form their own communities or receive instruction from their own religious leaders, they can be imprisoned. religious freedom is not just about religion. it is not just about the right of roman catholics to organize a mass or muslims to hold a religious funeral or bahai's to

meet in each other's homes for prayer or jews to celebrate high holy days together. as important as though our, religious freedom is about the right of people to think what they want -- as those are, religious freedom is about the right of people to think what they want and come together in fellowship without the state looking over their shoulder. that is where the state- exercised right of religious freedom is the first right enshrined in our first amendment, along with the freedom to speak an associate. because where religious freedoms exist, so did the others. it is also why the universal declaration of human rights protects -- human rights protect freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. they all speak to the same capacity within each and every human being -- to follow our

conscience, to make moral choices for ourselves, our families, our communities. these rights give our lives meaning and dignity. whatever religion we belong to. or if we belong to no religion at all. like all human beings and all human rights, they are our birthright by the mere fact of as being who we -- of us being who we are, thinking,a cting -- thinking, acting human beings. they're not granted to us by any government. rather it is the responsibility of government to protect them. this, of course, is not the view held by regimes that block religious freedom. they choose to see things differently. in particular, there are two arguments they make to justify their actions. both are worth examining.

the first is that honly 0-- only some people should be allowed to practice their faith, those who belong to the right faith. they define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe than what you're doing -- , then what you are doing is not religion. there is only one definition of religion. they and only they and the religious leaders with whom they work are in possession of the ultimate religious truth. others depend on a tradition -- depending on tradition are wrong, heretical, infidels. they do not deserve the protection of the law. they may not even deserve to live. because this is an issue that in flames emotions, it can be hard to talk about it constructively -- inflames emotions, it can be

hard to talk about it constructively. let me simply say this -- people can believe that they and only those like them possess the one and only truth. that is their right, though they do not have the right to harm those they think harbor incorrect views. but their societies pay a cost when they choose to look at others with hate or discussed. -- disgust. human rights become real not only in interactions between citizens and their government, but also in those millions of ordinary moments among neighbors and classmates and co-workers, even strangers on the street. every time people choose tolerance and respect over fear

and animosity, they strengthen human rights for themselves as well as everyone else, because they affirmed their shared humanity. that is our religious freedom -- excuse me -- inscribed inlaw, becomes religious harmony flourishing throughout society. religious leaders have a critical role to play in this process. we need them to encourage their followers -- excuse me -- to embrace the the principles of peace and respect, which are not only tenets of nearly every religion, but also at the heart of religious freedom. and then, most importantly, we need leaders to affirm that respecting the religious freedom of others is in keeping with, not in opposition to one's own rights. when people of all religions can

practice freely, it creates an environment in which everyone's freedom is more secure. leaders and governments, meanwhile, have their own responsibilities. people can think what they want, but governments have to act in favor of protecting the rights of all. the world should and must hold governments to a different standard than individuals, whether they are secular or religious, muslim or christian, hindu, atheistic, or anything else. governments have a solemn obligations to protect the human rights of all citizens, no matter what religion as they believe or do not believe. some leaders tried to excuse treating some citizens differently -- try to excuse treating some citizens to prevent others by saying that is what the people want. they said they personally believe in religious freedom, but if a majority of citizens want to see a group locked up or

thrown out of schools were fired from their jobs, -- schools or fired from their jobs, well, doesn't democracy mean following the will of the people? the answer is there is a big difference between democracy and the tyranny of the majority. the liberty that democracy provides does not include the freedom to do violence to the equality of all citizens before the law. that is why universal rights are often embedded in constitutions. they provide guard rails against laws that deprive members of minority groups of their rights. when popular opinion supports restricting the rights of a minority, leader should remember that the older people both their loyalty and -- leaders should remember that they owe their people both their loyalty and their judgment. when rights apply only to some

citizens and not to others, when principles are subverted to power, that sows the seeds for legitimate grievances and instability. and when democracy uses principles -- a genuine democracy uses principles to protect the rights of people equally. a second argument that leaders opposed to religious freedom make is that they cannot afford religious freedom yet. they argue that the result could be instability. a rise in anti-government sentiment, the freeing of social ties -- fraying of social ties, more acts of harassment and violence. this is the same argument that leaders invoked to justify cutting down on political expression, press freedom, or civil society groups, or any

activity that questions the status quo and reflects the citizens' democratic aspirations. in fact, long practice and even academic study shows that it is the absence of religious freedom that is correlated with religious conflict and violent extremism. there is also evident that conflict is more likely when states have official religions and persecuted religious minorities. that makes sense, if you think about it. when people are treated as equal under the law, hostilities among neighbors subside and social unity as a chance to grow -- has a chance to grow. so does trusted the democratic process, because people are confident their rights will be protected no matter who is in power. in other words, religious freedom is one of the safety valves. it lets people have a say over important aspects of their lives from enjoying their

society's bully, and channel their frustrations into constructive -- aspects of their lives, enjoying their society's fully, and channel their frustrations into constructive lives. otherwise, it is a recipe for conflict and extremism. some governments are coming to realize this. for example, in libya, since the overthrow of gaddafi, the new government has chosen not to enforce some of his lost that restricted religious activity. they have enshrined the free practice of religion in their interim constitution and outlawed discrimination on the basis of religion or sect. earlier this year, the libyan supreme court overturned a law that criminalize insults against islam -- criminalized insults against islam. they have come to realize that the best way to deal with offensive speech is to counter

it with speech that reveals the emptiness of the insult and allies. egypt is grappling with these challenges -- and the lies. egypt is grappling with these challenges as it navigates its unprecedented transition. i met with members of the new government, including president morsi. religious freedom was very present, behind closed doors and out in the streets. the president has said clearly and repeatedly in public and private that he intends to be the president of ok'd the egyptian people -- of all the egyptian people. he has pledged to appoint an inclusive government and put women and christians in high leadership positions. the egyptian people and the international community are looking to him to follow through on those commissions. i heard from christians who want

to know that they will be accorded the same rights and respect as all egyptians in a new government led by an islamist party. they wonder, understandably, will the government looking explicitly to greater reliance on islamic principles stand up for non-muslims and muslims equally? since this is the first time that egypt has ever been in this situation, it is a fair question. egyptians are building a brand new democracy. what it will look like, how it will work, how it will handle religious pluralism -- egyptians will be writing the answers to those and many other questions for years to come. as i told the christians with whom i met, the united states does not take the side of one political party over another. what we do is stand firmly on the side of principles.

yes, we do support democracy -- a real democracy. where every citizen has the right to live, work, and worship how they choose, whether they be muslim or christian or from any other background, where no group or faction can impose their authority or their ideology or their religion on anyone else, where there is healthy competition and what we call checks and balances. no one institution or leader gets too powerful and the rights of all citizens are respected and protected. the egyptian people will look to their elected leaders to protect the rights of all citizens and to govern in a fair and inclusive manner, and so willingly. and if voters make different choices in future elections, then they and we will expect

their leaders to respond to the will of the people and give up power. we are prepared to work with the leaders that the egyptian people choose, but our engagement with those leaders will be based on their commitment to universal human rights and universal democratic principles. another important aspect of egypt's transition is whether citizens themselves respect each other's differences. we saw that capacity vividly in tahrir square, when christians formed a circle around muslims in prayer and muslims class tends to protect christians -- clasped hands to protect christians celebrating mass. i think that spirit of unity and fellowship was a very moving part of our regions and all the rest of us -- of how egyptians and all the rest of us responded to what happened in those days

in that square. if, in the years ahead, egyptians continue to respect that precious tradition of what every single egyptian can contribute to the future of their country, where people of different faiths will be standing together in fellowship, then they can bring hope and healing too many communities in egypt -- to many communities in egypt who need that message. as we look to the future, not only in egypt, not only in the newly free and democratically- seeking states of north africa and the middle east, but far beyond, we will continue to advocate strongly for religious freedom. this is a bedrock priority of our foreign policy, one that we carry out in a number of ways. earlier today, the united states

did release our annual international religious freedom report. this is the fourth time i have had the honor of presenting it. it comprehensively catalogs the official and societal restrictions of people around the world face as they try to practice their faith. it designates countries a particular concern that have engaged in or tolerated -- countries of particular concern that have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. this report sends a signal to the worst offenders, that the world is watching. it also provides information to help us and others target our advocacy, to make sure we reached the people who most need our help -- we reach the people who most need our help. in the obama administration, we have elevated religious freedom as a diplomatic priority. together with governments,

international organizations, and civil society, we have work to shape and implement united nations human rights council resolution 1618. it seeks to protect people under attack or discriminated against because of their faith. we raised these issues at the highest levels of international settings. i personally have discussed religious freedom in every region of the world, sometimes over and over again. we have appointed our first envoy to the organization of islamic cooperation. we have launched a strategic dialogue with civil society, in which we collaborate with liver disease is leaders -- with religious leaders to promote religious freedom, a conflict prevention, and mitigation, and development center-religious dialogue. it includes a foreign policy working group that has provided concrete recommendations on how we can strengthen our approach to religious freedom and engagement with religious communities. beyond the policy, we expanded

our assistance to individuals under attack -- beyond diplomacy, we expanded our assistance to individuals under attack because of their beliefs and to human rights activists working in hostile environments to promote religious freedom. these men and women are doing vital and often dangerous work with great courage. we are proud to stand with them. as part of our human-rights dialogue with china, for example, we have taken chinese officials on site visits to see how religious organizations in our country provide valuable social services. we organize a visit to a catholic charity that provides help to people within -- with intellectual disabilities, an organization that fights discrimination against arab- americans, and more. we are also taking the message of tolerance and inclusion to young people. a few years ago, and rosenthal -- hannah rosenthal and our

special representative to muslim communities attended a tolerance summit together. it came away with an idea. they began asking and people to pledge to spend just one hour -- asking young people to pledge to spend just one hour working with people who do not look like them or play like them. jews were encouraged to volunteer to clean a mosque, islam's to help elderly christians get to church, -- muslims to help elderly christians get to church, and other examples. it has elicited commitments from young people are around the world to spend tens of thousands of hours walking in someone else's shoes. it has even become one of the london olympics official initiatives. it is something that we all have a responsibility to do. seven years ago, when i was a senator, i spoke at a dinner on religious liberty. i challenged everyone there to think of ways we could

personally for their religious freedom. including, in the words of eleanor roosevelt, "in those small places close to home." i said it was up to each of us to ensure that our nation, which has always been an exemplar of religious freedom, continues to be. our mission is important -- is as important today as it has ever been. the united states was founded amongst others -- founded, amongst others, by people fleeing religious persecution, who dreamed of a place where they could live according to their beliefs, without fear, without shame, without the need to hide. today, we are that place. with all of our challenges, there is no doubting the importance of religion to the vast majority of americans or to the fact that people of faiths and people of no faith live in

america openly and at peace with each other. the religious life of our nation is vibrant and alive. that has been possible because of our citizens' capacity over time for tolerance and respect. but also because of the work of our government, all three branches, to uphold our constitution, to take extraordinary care not to favor one religion over another, and to protect equally the rights of all. this has required perpetual vigilance an effort -- and effort. we all know there have been clashes and stumbles and vigorous, impassioned debate along the way. we are still searching for and moving toward that more perfect union.

of course, we like any non- divine entity are not perfect. but we should be proud and grateful for the wisdom of our founders and for the diligence of those who came after to protect this be essential freedom -- this essential freedom. it is rare in this world, but it should not be. people are not asking for much. they just want to worship their god and raise their children and make their homes and honor their ancestors and warned their loved ones -- and mourn their loved ones in a way that speaks to their hearts and reflects their beliefs. what could be more fundamental to human dignity than that? that is what religious freedom makes possible. that is why the united states

will always stand for the value, the principle that religious freedom represents, not only fos r us, but for people everywhere. it is not only about you that we enshrined in our constitution -- only a value that we enshrined in our constitution. we know from long experience it goes right to the heart of the stability and security of so many countries in the world. in this injured-connected world we live in, that means -- inter- connected world we live in, that means it affects the stability and security of the united states of america. thank you for understanding the importance of this about you and principal -- of this value and principle, and i hope for seeking ways to continue to further it, protect it, and

spread it. thank you very much. [applause] now i think we will maybe take a few questions, and jessica? in no particular order -- here come the microphones. >> thank you so much, madam secretary, for what you do in the world and for the united states. i am egyptian american. thank you for caring about egypt. i am the founder of a democracy for egypt. my question to you, madame, is not only the question in egypt -- i don't know if you read the

last report that the change for egypt is asking president morsi right now that he is not delivering what he promised in forming the new government. you mentioned that you will be observing closely and if there would be steps taken. if you could enlighten us on what is next. thank you so much for your effort. >> well, thank you, and let me start by saying that i do recognize that a democratic transition is a complicated one for any country, and in all to humility, it took us quite some time to get it right, to include all of our citizens, starting with african-americans and women and truly fulfill not only the letter of the constitution, but the

aspirations of our people. as i monitor what is happening in egypt, i am conscious of how challenging it is to get off on the right footing, to be absolutely clear what your principles and values are. as you are aware, and there was certainly a very concerted effort by the president and the freedom and justice party and others associated with it, including the muslim brotherhood, to make commitments about the kind of inclusive a tip that the government would represent, the respect that all egyptians would be held in, and the protection of the rights of all egyptians. now we are waiting to see how that gets translated into action. we are certainly aware of the

forming of the new government, with the announcement of a new prime minister. we are waiting to see who is in that government. that will be an important step along the way. we are looking for ways to support the government, particularly in fulfilling the economic aspirations of all egyptians. but we are going to judge by actions, not words. and the actions are religious that the of the beginning stages -- the actions are really just at the very beginning stages. it is important to make absolutely clear to everyone that we're not supporting any individual party or any individual. there seems to be a view on the part of some that we are, but that is not the case, never has been the case. we have supported a transition

that we hope as lead to a democracy, which, as we have made clear, is not just about elections. there were mistakes in the past, and some of the ways that we shorthanded support for democracy in our country, let's have an election and democracy, and maybe we never have to have another one. one election, one time. we don't have to be held to any standard as to how we continue to reach out and respect people. i have made it very clear that that is not the case. an election does not a democracy make. we are emphasizing the independence of the press, freedom of religion, the kinds of things that we have learned over many years of practice of what sustains a democracy.

as egypt adopt a new constitution, as it votes again for parliament, as its government takes office, we will see a recognition, a commitment to what we view as essential for democracy to be sustainable. now, am concerned that respect for religious freedom is quite tenuous. goingt know that that is to quickly be resolved, but since 2011 and the fall of the mubarak regime, sectarian violence has increased. attacks on christians and muslims, sectarian violence, from both communities, has cost lives. we don't think there has been a

consistent commitment to investigate and applied the laws equally to the perpetrators of such violence. that it and sends a message to the minority community in particular, but to the larger community, that there is not going to be any consequences for acting out one's own religious prejudices or social and securities. that is the kind of recipe that can quickly get out of control in terms of conflict and also undermined the new democracy. i am urging the egyptian government at all levels to respect the rights of all egyptians. and i am urging those who are concerned, not only christians, but also moderates, liberals, secularists, to organize themselves. this is something that i started

talking to the tahrir square of veterans about shortly after the fall of mubarak, that it has been my experience that when democratic space opens up, when frieden opens up -- freedom opens up an authoritarian regimes are falling, those who are unorganized will not be successful. hell is that for profound statement? -- how is that for a profound statement? [laughter] but all too often, people who are in the moderate liberal world that don't have the same commitment to organization and follow-through that those whose beliefs are so certain that they know exactly what they are going to try to achieve. there is the religious dimension, at the constitutional

inclusive of the dimension, but there is also the political dimension. in a democracy, you have to get out there and work to elect people who represent your views. otherwise, you are going to be sidelined. it is my hope that as we judge egypt's leaders by their actions, egyptian activists really get more focus on how to influence of the government themselves. i know this is a long haul, but that is the way democracy works. it does not happen overnight. oh, my goodness. [laughter] i don't know, jessica, you should be calling on these people. this young man in the middle, in the striped shirt. >> very lucky to see you here. >> thank you. >> religion sometimes mixes with other issues like terrorism.

the terrorists, the separatists, mobilize supporters. how to protect religious freedom and counterterrorism as well as a counter-separatism? thank you. >> that is an important question, because oftentimes when we talk about religious freedom, there is a tendency for people to worry about the free exercise of religion somehow supporting terrorists and separatists. i have almost the opposite view. i think the more specter is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. if they feels oppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own

religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair, that they turned to violence and become extremists. now, there will always be people in nearly every society who are going to believe that god is talking right to them and saying, you know, what you really need to do is overthrow the government, what you really need to do is to kill the un believers. there will be people like that. but we're talking about organizing society for the vast majority of people, having people who exercise their religious beliefs lawfully, protected by the law, and people who engage in violence, harassment, intimidation, or other antisocial criminal behavior are punished by the law. but one should not be punished

or harassed merely because of who one is or what one believes, unless their actions associated with that. that often is difficult rub in many areas when we talk about religious freedom. you know, it is not just religions against one another. it is even within religions -- within christianity, within judaism, within islam, within hinduism. there are people who believe in their version of that religion is the only right way to believe. in some of the countries we are most concerned about that are majority muslim countries, it is intimidation and violence against muslims who are in minority sects that we must worry about. we watch for many years the

conflict in northern ireland against catholics on one side and protestants on the other. i think you are right that there always are issues about terrorism, separatism. but those should be dealt with under the law without infringing on the rights of people whose religious beliefs are different from the majority. i hope that governments can begin to make those distinctions. it is not only important to do because you don't want to breed extremism, which you can do by cracking down on religion, especially if i.t. is associated with the different ethnic group or tribal group, other identifying characteristics. but it is also because if you are not careful, people will feel that they are in a life or

death struggle to protect their religion in the majority against the minority. i remember going to bosnia after the end of the war in bosnia, and a woman telling me the she couldn't believe hostility she started to feel from her neighbors. she said to a neighbor, "why are you behaving like this? we have known each other for many years. we went to school together, we went to weddings, we bury our dead together. why are you treating me like this?" the answer was, "because we were told if we did not do that to you first, you would do that to us." if the government doesn't step in and say, no, we are not going to let people be acting this way, we are not going to let

them be discriminating, we are not going to let them be harming others on the basis of religion or any other characteristics, but focusing on religion, they can get out of control of any government. as we know, governments and sometimes stoke religious discrimination for their own political reasons. you have problems at home, the economy is not doing well. let's go find an enemy, let's go find people who are over there. they are of a different religion. that gets everybody excited. you like a match and you cannot put the fire out. we need to be thoughtful about sorting out the problems posed by extremism and terrorism from legitimate religious differences that should be tolerated, respected, and protected. >> we have time for just one more. may i ask you, when the

secretary is finished answering this question, to stay on your -- [unintelligible] >> chesaco, why don't you call on the last person? -- jessica, why don't you call on the last person? >> i am serving as the and general counsel of the american strategic alliance, working tto bring together egypt and the united states in a stronger alliance. one of the things we been talking to the egyptian government about is this issue of religious freedom, and we told them, look to your left, meeting places like jordan, lebanon, and palestine, where muslims and christians, particularly in palestine, have lived in peace for centuries. i am wondering if your conversations touch upon that. look to your fellow arab countries, where it is is not a problem, frankly. just a quick follow-up question. i appreciate your emphasis on america, but we also have our problems here with respect to,

of course, is, phobia, which i am sure you are aware of. i'm wondering if you have comments about his recent activity in, starting one of your own aid -- are in one of your own aid -- targeting one of your own aides. >> well, on the first question, there have been disturbing recent developments with christians being attacked and driven out of iraq, christians in syria feeling like they are really going to be at risk, almost regardless of what develops in the terrible conflict that is now raging. christians feeling that they are under pressure in lots of places in the middle east, where, as you rightly say, they have lived for centuries it side-by-side. i think i.t. is quite important for us to unpack that. why is it happening now? what is it?

of course, it is a new political identity, i guess an effort by islamists -- it is an effort by islamists primarily, although not exclusively, to claim a democracy and see how it fits within their pre-existing from works of belief. there's a lot of attention and concern going on right now across the arab world, particularly in places where christians have lived and would love to continue living. has several questions in egypt told me, our people have been here and i can trace my family back to a thousand years. i love this country i want to be a part of this country and i want to help build this country. i just hope i will be able to. it is at this point that leadership is incredibly important. leaders have to be active in stepping in and send messages

about protecting the diversity within their countries. frankly, i don't see enough of that. i want to see more of it, " i want to see more of it. we did see some of that in our own country. we saw republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that have no place in our politics. we have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. we have to continue doing so. but we also have to expect other leaders to do the same. when i think about how scared so many minorities, religious minorities are all over the world, and governments -- i have ae that governments a

bigger role to play and leveraged than they exercise. to many governments, particularly in these fast- transitioning societies, when there is so much going on at the same time -- too many governments believe their religious freedom is something you get to after you deal with everything else. it is just not a priority for them. we want to raise it up on the visibility list of what they need to be dealing with, and to try to send a clear message. you need to stand up for the rights of your people. you are a leader of a diverse society. if you are in a rock, you need to be protecting every community, not just one or two at the most. if you are in lebanon, you need to be standing up for every community. similarly, in egypt, pakistan, indonesia, china, india, and where, leaders need to be out

front saying that an acting on a. i am hoping that we will see more actions that move in that direction, and the united states will continue to push and prod and persuade and, if necessary, look at ways to use consequences that can send a very clear message that we believe you will not be successful, you will not be stable, you will not be secure, you will not have a sustainable democracy. let me add one other thought about this, though. in some societies, what we're seeing, going back to the young man passed a question -- terrorism, separatism, and religion -- there can be as fertile ground if the government is not paying attention to all

the needs of the people. we also are going to have policies that, if you are living in northern nigeria, you will see more development so that you do not only see -- take on the security front, but take it on the economic development fund. -- front. there are lots of ways to try to knit this together. it is probably the most exciting time but the most daunting time to be a leader in the world right now, especially in these new transitioning democracies. there are just so many high expectations that will be so difficult to me. -- meet staff. for principle -- stand for principles, stand for values, and lead them to the space they should have to exercise the most

precious freedoms human beings should have gone are regardless of who their leaders are. the united states will stand ready to assist them in any way possible. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the internet brings radical transparency to almost everything it touches. privacy becomes a construct. it is an artificial construct, a very important one, created by laws and institutions enforcement. >> until a few weeks ago, he oversaw the process for

expanding the number of internet domain names worldwide for the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers. tonight, an inside look at the internet and cybersecurity on "the communicators," at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was always a very native american region and i county and other state called kentucky. we began in 1778. >> this weekend, and joined booktv, american history tv, and c-span's local content vehicles from louisville, kentucky. today, literary life on c-span2. a biographer of the kentucky senator mitch mcconnell. and in other on recruiting american politics -- an author on. but -- rebooting american

politics. the key to shaping american linkedin's views on slavery. -- abraham lincoln's views on slavery. once a month, the local content nickles examine the literary and cultural history. pbs correspondence judy ifill now.d gwein they were at the national press club in washington, d.c. their comments last about an hour. >> just about a month from now, when the republican convention convenes in tampa, florida, two women on this dais will make

journalism history, becoming the first all-female team in broadcast news is due to enter the network convention coverage. given the caliber of the women in falls, it is not a surprise at all. judy woodruff and gwen ifill micki formidable team. ifill is moderator and managing editor of "washington week," as well as senior correspondent and anchor of "pbs newshour." she is also the best selling author of "the breakthrough." woodruff has covered politics for more than three decades at cnn, nbc, and pbs. she has coanchored the "pbs newshour" since her return to pbs in 2007. both women have covered just about everything. for 12 years, woodruff anchor

to cnn's "inside politics." at pbs for a decade, she was the chief washington correspondent for "mcneal/lehrer newshour," and she anchored "frontline." one of the most influential projects was for documentary on youth and politics, which explored the views of the 42,000,016-to-25-year-old -- 42 million 16-to-25-year-olds. ygg. for everyone else, you go, girl. [laughter] ifill has covered six presidential campaigns and

moderated two vice-presidential debate, including the 2004 debate between dick cheney and john edwards. at the 2008 debate between democrat joe biden and republicans are pa and republic -- and sarah palin. she began her career at newspapers, covering politics for "the new york times" and "the washington post." today we are looking forward to hearing some sharp political insights on the upcoming election. please join me in giving them a warm welcome. [applause] >> thank you, after a reset. it is an honor to be here at the storied national press club. gwen and i are honored by this invitation. thank you all for being here to

talk about and to hear us talk about this extraordinary election. i want to thank members of the "newshour" family to are here. you heard pbs president paula kerger is here, a vice president michael johns is seated right here. as you heard, the president of macneil/lehrer productions, and a linda winslow, executive producer of "the newshour." we are a family and we support one another and it means a lot to both women to have all of you here. thank you. i have covered so many press club events that it feels a little strange to be on the other side of the microphone, but i am very excited to be here to talk about this extraordinary collection and to talk a little bit about what pbs and "pbs newshour" are

going to be doing a cover it. if you wonder why i am going first, i can let you know on a little secret. like the perfect ladies we are, gwen and i are wrestled over a over it.arm wrestled [laughter] there is some tension between gwen and me -- what color we are wearing. [laughter] things got really tense when we both showed up at the office wearing bright yellow. gwen ended up going home. i have the luckiest person in television news because i get to work with gwen ifill every day. there is no better journalist in america, a woman who is excelled at the highest levels of newspapers, broadcast network news, and public television. she elevates all of our games,

so i will ask you again to honor my colleague gwen ifill. [applause] and of course, both of us are fortunate to have been able to work for so many years alongside jim lehrer, and before him, robin macneil. they and set the standard for the work we do at "the newshour." this is, if you are not counted, my 10th presidential election -- that is, if you don't count sneaking into the democratic national convention in 1972 in miami without a pass as a local reporter for the cbs affiliate station. since then, if he did not count that one, there have been a seminal moments.

one afternoon in the summer of 1976, i met my future husband in plains, georgia, on high school softball field, that the staff of then candidate jimmy carter played the press. we forget how competitive president carter was. he always got the secret service on the campaign staff team, so they clobbered the reporters every game. little did we know what those agents might be up to later. [laughter] i would like to tell you that al and i had a romantic dinner after that game. unfortunately, he immediately went to atlanta because of a date with an airline attendant. all those moments in anchoring election night coverage in 2000, hanging chads, i wish i would

at the presence tim russert to transcend technology with a simple chalkboard. what about 2012? there are several different ways to look at this year postelection, and virtually all of them lead to the conclusion that this is gone to be a very close outcome. as the cross currents, competing claims that we see in every election are more stark this year than usual. and i will list a few of them. the condition versus candid. it decided majority think the candidate -- the country is on the wrong track. that is bad news for and a comet. check, romney. many republicans acknowledged as of today obama is a much better political candidate than his opponent. romney as the highest negative ratings of any recent

challenger at this point. egatives attion nagy' this point in the election for an opponent is as bad as it is, check, obama. on the other hand, no president has ever been elected since world war ii with an unemployment rate over 8%. at this point, 8% on election side would be on the optimistic side of most economists' expectations. money versus mobilization. with citizens united, the republicans, unlike last time thelma will have the money advantage in 2012. going toke karl rove's

be swapping democratic resources in some of the swing states. check, romney. if the number of undecided voters or persuade a bowles is as small as some pollsters believe it will become this election may be more about delivering turnout or about mobilizing support, experience, technology, the obama team is ahead of its opponent. jack, obama. finally, 1984 versus a dozen for. is this election a repeat of the reagan-carter election when voters decided things were going so poorly that all the challenger had to do was be a minimum threshold as the clamor for change was a great if so, jack romney, or is it more like a years ago, when despite dissatisfaction with where the country was headed, where voters liked the compound and decided the challenger did not

offer a compelling case for change. if that is the case, check obama. these are another reminder of why most analysts expect this election to be so close. one thing i want to do is quickly share a couple of lessons i have learned from decades and decades of covering the elections. both of them are going to be perfectly obvious to you, but it took me a while to get that. first, it is not about us in the news media. in 1976, jimmy carter had come roaring out of the iowa caucuses as the hot new thing as he campaigned in new hampshire. i was following him into a big five and dime store as he worked his way from one end of the store to another, front to the back. suddenly i noticed all the customers who had been hovering around carter were heading off in another direction, so he was

standing there alone. i was curious, so i went to check it out. who would come into the store? there we found none other than the iconic walter cronkite, who was trying to be a reporter and see for himself, following this phenom candidate from georgia. as he told me a few years later, sadly, i cannot follow the candidates anymore because i distract from that. most of us are not walter cronkite, and it is not about us. the second lesson i guess you could say i learned is a big moment -- is that big moments did not turn up the consequence in. -- consequential. i was a moderator in 1988 during a vice presidential debate, that had become pretty personal. senator quayle was facing heat over his qualifications to be

president, and in an effort to defend some he compared himself to president kennedy. at brunch point, senator bentsen paused, looked at him, and said, i served with jack kennedy, jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you are no jack kennedy. at which point the room exploded and that became the quotation from the debate. it was one of the most memorable lines in modern american politics, and it had absolutely no bearing on the election. [laughter] why am i saying this? what the elections are about is about the voters and it is about the issues. fiscal challenges, certainly this year, taxes, the size and scope of government, china, iran, the supreme court appointments. with the partnership at pbs with programs like frontline, the amazing documentary series we to, programs like need to know,

rs plan tonews hohou cover both, the voters and issues, online and on the air, to the perspective of real voters like this gentleman i interviewed in south florida last week covering some of the president's campaign, talking to voters, and i ran across one gentleman and i later had to tweet about it because the quotation was too good not to treat about. we were talking to people who voted for obama for years ago and are not sure they wanted to vote for him again. it was a really good window into what the challenges are, but this young man said, i guess i will vote for him again, not with enthusiasm and no prompting from me, he explained, if you have a choice between a sandwich with salami and a sandwich with no meat, you will go with the one with salami. [laughter] i said ok. our hope is to talk to more

voters like the sand which voter at to find out their hopes, fears, frustrations, and the huge stakes and abide of this election, talking to experts, can the debts, when we can. a long time ago robin mcneill said we dare to be dull. we will there to treat this election and this election seriously, and we have an amazing team supporting us at the pbs newshour, online and on the air. have become one in our shop, and gwen joins me in this sentiment. i expect we'll have fun in the process over the next four months. i know i'm going to have fun covering this with a fabulous partner in gwen ifill.

please welcome her. [applause] >> i am tempted to say what she said and sit down, but if i did that i could not acknowledge my friends here from weta, the folks who keep us on the air, not only in washington we, but also in the news hour. thank you all for being here today. judy and i finish each other's words, said it is perfect we will be sitting next to each other, not in matching canary yellow. part of it is because judy and i come from the same types of backgrounds. we know latitude we have now to do what we want to do. we believe life is more

important than heat. there's a smart way to have a debate, not to have the same fight all over again. it is a more nuanced way to look at these issues which have beset us, rather than having a fight. we believe the architecture of democracy matters. that is why we cover these conventions exhaustively. c-span is great at pointing cameras, and we do it, too, but we will tell you why. we will try to talk to voters about what they want to hear from these conventions. it is great to go inside to complete -- the convention halls. nerg child i was. people inside are the most informed and engaged. the people who decide the election are not inside those rooms in tampa and charlotte.

what we want to do is get out and talk to as many people as possible. we have an online project where we stick a camera in someone's face and ask them about their concerns. it you will see an incredible " the discussion on our website which we will continue to do all the year. it is another thing to hear their voices. that is what i mean by the architecture of democracy. conventions are a way to get inside that. it is a handy place to put everybody. although i see the people in the room are the most engaged, they are the most interesting. they're not just party hacks. they give up their time to be engaged in the world around them. we want to find out what is driving them. when we go to the republican convention, we want to know who the tea party are who are most engaged in shipping what the party is today. when we go to the democratic

convention, we want to talk to the people who are complete obama partisans and the ones who are not so certain. we what do here but the country is doing and what they're thinking. conventions provide us agree to do this. in the end, when the it is voters that matter. judy and i can tell stories about the people we brought in to bendigo -- when we go -- when i go to stand in the middle of a fare war and out of water festival, people will say i know you, your from pbs or from washington week or from the news hour and a bus but this may -- and they will start to say smart things and i say turn on the camera and let it roll. they are immediately engaged. occasionally you cannot hear what people are saying. in 2004 after i moderated the

cheney-ed mertz debate, which at about it and say, what questions when i asked today? -- edwards debate. completely different. i remember walking into a store, adding up to a guy wearing a bomber jacket, said he was a steelworker, had been laid off. i thought myself, this is clear what is about to happen. he must be a kerry-edwards voter because this is the perfect example of the stressed-out democratic-leaning and appointed middle of america ohio steel worker. when i asked him, he said he was voting for george bush. he said he trusted him. a month later when americans cast their vote, i realized what

had happened, a lot of people were voting based on that. even that it did not seem obvious to us, it reminded us that it was a more fundamental way of thinking, whoever wins this election will be the one who makes that case. we do a thing where we go out and run the country and to spot blight cities, where we go to town and the sick people down and ask them to talk to each other. we live in a world of silo people listenre to just one that are . we were in tampa there were people arguing about what their understanding of the health care bill was at that time. this -- the fight they were having, the disagreements that are having, or emblematic of what was going on, and these

years later we can still see those divisions. we have discovered that character matters. we can spend time talking to candid about if you were a tree, what would you be, but in the end, when you come down to what voters want to know who you are and whether it squares with who they are and what their bodies are. in the end, that matters, and our partners at frontline ardent especial that they do every year called the choice, just before the election where you see a laid out documentary fashion who these people are, what their backgrounds are. it tells you something on air in depth without commercial interruption that you will only get in bits and pieces everywhere else. policy matters. people want to know how these policies will affect their lives. whether their taxes will go up. whether their kids will be able to afford to repay their college loans. whether their kids should even

go to college. whether their kids can survive high school, when they think about going to the batman movie and not being able to come home. americans live in a time of incredible stress, economic and personal, and who ever in this campaign find a way to speak to that in the most authentic way, through advertising or a handshake or a hug in a hospital room, that person has the upper hand to pick in the and the question becomes, connection. who speaks to me? this is why i think pbs is a place to come to find out the answers to these questions. we have the luxury of time. we can tell you at length what it is you should be thinking about, and we do -- we make a point not to interrupt. we have the luxury of analysis. when i sit around a table on friday night on washington week, i call it my sandbox, and if it works the of what it were, you

feel you are eavesdropping on a cool dinner party. i learned something and they learn something from something that somebody has said a roundtable. the interesting part of washington week, people who watch it talk to me, i pour a glass of wine and watch washington week every friday night. i am worried about the audience. i said i did not get to drink while i on the show, and he sent me a half a case of wine. we think it is important to get away from that table, to reach outside the bubble. in 2001 we won an award for taking the show on the road to 10 different cities in a critical election year in which we not only at our panelists in the audience with people are of the country, but did another half an hour on the web where we talk to them, and it was a good way at doing what we say we like to do, getting out and engaging the people who are just watching

us as a week. .e're doing not of those show we have gone from 10 but the san diego -- are doing to him but for real. where do in the virtual san diego, and it is a way to bring people in for the issues they care about. we are there for the critical decisions. we will explain the health care bill for you, explain the money, everything you need to know to be an informed voter by the time the election rolls around. i will stop there and take questions. i have one request, and you will join me, which is please do not address it to queen latifah. thank you very much. [applause] >> as you alluded to, queen

latifah play in a "saturday night live" skit. >> played me twice, and i never met her, but when i met her, i walked up and said, so it do you think you can never play me again? give me some material. i am saying that teena fey knocked it out of the park, but i get to be a hit on college campuses. >> some say the campaign is more negative than previous ones. what do you think? gns isampaing

right. politics is always ugly. when you read what the founding fathers said about one another, it was pretty personal and down and dirty. think about what lyndon johnson, the ad that he ran against barry goldwater, the little cold with the daisy, think about the michael dukakis ad. today these guys are saying he is sending jobs offshore and he did not live up to his promises. i think it is pretty tame to what we have seen in the past. the election is not over. america has seen some pretty tough politics throughout our lifetimes. >> she is finishing my sen tence. >> why is it that americans are

apathetic about the political process? >> not pbs viewers. there's a concern. people are not speaking to their concerns and often that is the case. we can point the finger back ourselves in the media, which is to say we are only concerned about housewives, that may not be that think that is dragging people's lives. what i was getting a little bit when i said not pbs of viewers, because we speak to a self- selected group of people who have decided that they'd want more, who make a decision that in a crazy world of a million different channels where you can watch or get information any way you want, that people can be turned off by what we deliver to them. i do not think it is hopeless at all. i find the most hopeful possibilities on college

campuses and high schools. we are interested in making sure young people understand what the news is as opposed to what they have been force fed and treated as news. i find that people really are trying to be engaged. they come up to me, young people, and they say, i only watch jon stewart. and i think that is an insult, but i tell them they need to watch jon stewart and us, because jon steward watches me. you have to understand the meaning of the joke and white it is funding. in order to do that, you have to understand how the government works. he helps to drive people to better information, and for that reason i think all the comedians

of the world. -- thank all the comedians of the world. >> how would you great the candidates on issues related to women? >> i do not think -- i think that has yet to unfold. there certainly has been an element of the campaign so far, the obama campaign would certainly like to take advantage of the president's position on social issues they think will be more appealing to many women. but republicans, to the extent republicans and this candidate, is more appealing to married women -- that is the divide that we see these days straight up to much men, women, but it's also unmarried women versus single women. i think both of them think about

this. it is a part of the calculus as they go out and campaign. howe's conversation about the soccer moms have come back. the argument now is many of them are up for grabs and looking around. i do not see a clearly articulated pitch to women voters, and perhaps we will see that in the next four months. >> we have had to go to this war on women argument. it is specious because no one defines it and says what that is about. i have seen some ads on the air in which they attack each other on what are suppose to be women's issues like abortion. y issues.em famil i think both candidates are

pitching specifically to women voters this year. what i would think we are able to do, and judy thinks the way i do, not the boil it down to simplistic ideas about what a woman boss idea is or what issues are for latina is. the extent we can expand this understanding of what these demographics are, what they care back, and explained that in a larger way, we can do a service. >> and attacks by republicans on government funding for public radio and the general need for spending cuts, how secure is that future of programs like yours and could your survive without government funding? >> is a tougher environment than it has ever been. some of it has to do with the political argument, smaller government cannot government needs to be involved in fewer things. it is a tougher environment. we think the value of public

broadcasting is as clear and as necessary as it has ever been. it means we have to work harder to raise money, to find a kind of funding we need to stay on the air. could we survive without government funding? it would clearly be tougher for us perry is a portion of the money we get, but do i think we could do it? yes. i do not think seven like that is imminent. my understanding is for any kind of change to happen there would be a glidepath over several years. i do not see that happening. when we talk to members of congress who vote on these things, i hear supportive things about public broadcasting, from members of both parties. it is not something we can spend a lot of time worrying about. but the bus come to work every day to do our jobs, and it is up to others to who are thinking about this, but my great hope is

the work week to sells us and tells her story better than anything else. that makes the case in a way that better than anybody else in any other way could. >> we can make these badges available to you for a small price. we can find ways to make this paid off for you. we also have lovely took bags. -- tote bags. >> there have been complaints that presidential campaigns drag on too long and voters become numb to it. what do you think? the you think we have campaign fatigued? junkie and atical campaign gently, and i love talking to voters about what is on their mind. i would be happy if they went on

all the time. i think there is a case to be made that this idea that the day after the election we start speculating about who is going to run in four years and run spotlighting who the up-and- for thehoeverw qrs are next election -- we probably do that. it is a natural tendency to think about what is next. it is the american way. i thrive on this. we go to sleep every night thinking about politics and it is the first thing we think about every morning. >> so not, but ok -- ok, fine, judy, whatever. we think if you do it the right way that you can use elections as a well to tell us more about america. such an interesting and complex place. every time i report a story i've

always learn more about this nation. it is an interesting. the secret and the reason people get tired of this, keep writing and covering it in the same way and we did not explain but whys. if we stay up at night trying to think about how to do this right, we think about ways of trying to transcend it. i like a horse race as much as anybody. i also want to read it with an eye toward how can this tell us more about this point -- this country at this point in history. that is how i think about elections. they are crazy. we get to chase bright and shiny objects from week to week that he not matter a week from now. at the end, we end up finding out a lot more and it is worth doing. >> with the jack kennedy moment, report is loveland --

reporters love them. how do you get away from covering these without referring to sound bites? >> you just do, keep asking. we spent a tremendous amount of time before on the air every night with research and talking who canous people t tell the best portrait in your cars made occurred yesterday. if i sit at the desk with a list of 10 questions and i only ask those 10 questions, that is a rare night. i listened to the answers. i hope it will take me and the listeners somewhere else. there are sound bites, but the sound bites have to illustrate something, take you someplace and not not just leave you there. sound bites can be useful. they tell you something about what the speaker intended and what it means v.a. we can do that. we have to ride our cells harder

to keep asking the questions. -- ourselves harder to keep asking the questions. >> what the you think of one of the presidential debates being devoted solely to the idea of the national debt? >> i think it probably will be. it is certainly devoted to the economy, and i am assuming all three commissions that have sponsored presidential debates will in one measure or another be about the economy. that is what is on the mind of american voters for the last several minutes here. people are concerned, anxious across the country. we see it when we go out. it is not just numbers, not just this group that launched its next effort here at the press club last week, where they are calling on the politicians to come together to do something about not just the debt, but the

fiscal cliff, the fiscal challenges that the country faces, tax increases that are inevitable. all of those things are so central to what this election is about. at least one of the debates should be about the debt and the economy, and in my view is to be a part of albert conversation, because we want to know. these candidates are not telling us with great specificity what they would do. we know the out lines, but we do not know specifics, and it will be tough to get those specifics. i am looking to the debates to try to pin both of them down on these and other questions. >> some out much regret not having covered more candidate obama's track record in 2008. what do you think is the big story this year?

>> do we ever know what they are until we cover them? i always think i wish i had asked that question or dug deeper. generally i do not know until it is over. i felt like we did in the end do a decent job of explaining who he was, where he came from, and what he meant to do. it may be there was disillusionment after he was elected who heard something differently than they expected. certainly among some democrats who thought he was more liberal. i do not know what it was people thought they heard, i would argue not only what we do but in general we have to consume our news differently. i grew up watching three networks, right? you know who they were. you watch them every night. he read a couple papers in my household, and you knew a lot. in the end we had a million

places to go for information, and that is also the advantage. it means never going back to the way it was. it means if you have a curiosity, if you think that that is not being talked about, there is a lot of places you can go to get more information. i think we over cover some things, the question about it, and the undercover some things. i would be curious if somebody is going to ask this year about poverty or people who are stressed who are not in the top 1%. it would be interesting to hear that conversation and ask candidates to be specific. i do not think in the and you can go very far with the candidates will not go, and they are disciplined about what they are there to talk about and what they're not there to talk about. >> as the advent of social media made a difference in your coverage of the presidential

campaign this year, and how? >> yes, you're looking at twitter queen gwen ifill standing behind me, who has how many hundreds of thousands of tweets? it has been changed, and some of us are dragged kicking and screaming, and i am talking about me, because it is the idea we would become as recovering at a store, constantly wiping out the iphone, taking pictures, which is what we do on the scene of a story and filing constantly, what technology as -- has wrought is making a difference. i hear reporters saying i had a moment to breed because from the minute i get up in the morning -- a moment to breathe because

from the minute i get, it in the morning comeuppance the good part of it is it brings in closer touch with the american people. those folks who want to follow, who are interested in following social media, the multiple other sources of news and information, i think it is terrific, and way of engaging those younger voters who traditionally have not voted in the numbers that their elders have, and this time they can stay connected, and it is a job to keep thinking about them and keep filing, keep tweeting. >> i find it to be a useful news-gathering tool. you can start it at with the pdf, but you cannot and with

wikipedia. you can do it right on your phone, you can find more information on the days when you do not get out to go around to find it. i would say we have two dozen panelists on our regular broadcasts, and the vast majority of them have twitter candles. >> and the competition here, that judy might need some followers. [laughter] people complain there's too much money in politics. the leader of one super pac says american spend more each year on halloween. do you think election year spending is excessive? >> the supreme court has spoken. i do not think it is our place.

clearly, money is a wash in american politics. it is so paid, and at some point the voters are going to be looking at all these at, and when there is nothing but political advertising on your local television screen, the question becomes, what am i learning? am i really hearing something different? i had a couple of you say to me in the reception in the hallway that you were already getting tired of some of the ads you are seeing, and it is june and july. this is something campaigns have to weigh, and the negative ads they're running come they have to make a calculation. they know they are prone to get hurt by this adds. is the damage they are trying to do to their opponent want to

make it worth it, or will that outweigh whatever damage they do themselves? there is an lot of money out there, but i do not see it turning around. but the supreme court has spoken, saying money equal speech. the question that becomes for us, what is the monday spending, who is spending it? that will always be the question we want to know about anything come ellis about the choice we have to make it a fall. i think but how money is spent is as interesting as help it is raise, and as long as we have transparency and find out as much as possible about donors, it tells us about character, direction, tells cuff it is more information. >> the difficulty is when there is no transparency. this year we do not know where a lot of money is coming from, and that is where we have to keep reporting.

>> what is your assessment of the voter-suppression issue? >> >watch the news hour tonight, because ray suarez has spent the past week in pennsylvania during a story about further at an occasion and suppression any place you have not heard about. i am looking forward to seeing it because i have been following this story closely. it may be one of the key sticking-point stories of the year. >> out the do handle provisions interviews with politicians who do not -- how do you handle interviews with politicians who did not answer questions? >> it is a fact of life. they want to get their story of cross that puts them in the best

possible light, and you want to get all the information you can, so the voters have more information. it is the definition of what reporters do. we are constantly trying to get information that is important that helps the public make decisions about what is going on, at all levels, and it seems to me that politicians view their job to be to get reelected. i do not mean to be cynical about it, much more than that, but they want to tell the positive rosie side of the store and not share the rest of it. that is what we do. that is what our job is, to try to coax as much information out of them and do other reporting that causes them to want to open up. >> i have great faith in the sorts of the american people.

in 2008, there can a point in a debate in which governor palin said to me, i did not have to answer the questions the moderator poses, which i thought that was the deal. i had a couple of choices. it turns out not. i could have gone what? i could have just that the signs drop out, which would have been awkward, where i could do which is what i decided to do, which is let her make the case you wanted to make and let the viewers decide. i found time and time again that when someone does not answer a question cannot people pick up on abouit. >> you apparently did not read the fine print. how do we pbs-ify political

discourse in this country? >> is what we try to do every day. the american people -- sure, there is an appetite for the food fight, but for those americans who care about learning about the issues. we care more about white than we do keats. that is what we are there to do, and we have to keep making the case for that and keep doing it and keep showing it works. that is going to make the case better than anything else. there will always be plenty of places for people to go if they want to see a food fligight. that is not what we are about. i think there is a real interest and appetite out there for what we do. >> during the course of your

careers, you have seen reporters go from the boys on the bus to a much more prominence for women. how has that affected the nature of political reporting? >> we talk about issues more. i don't know. [laughter] -- we talk about shoes more? [laughter] i have been fortunate to be with a lot of great women on the bus. i spent my first campaign covering everybody because i was the lowest per cent on the totem pole at "the washington post." it got to that point where the candidates would look at me and go, oh, it is all over, gwen is here. i met a lot of great women who covered politics. i have met women along the way, judy woodruff, who i wanted to

grow up to become law but it turns out she was not that much older. as a result i have not been in an experience where there was an absence of women on the bus. we have been engaged and smart. when the vice-president -- when geraldine ferraro got on the bus, a lot of women got on the bus. i look at people like some who hold it down at the white house and does not let them off the hook, there are great women doing this work. it does not change the work. it changes the faces doing the work, and it changes the emphasis of the kinds of questions we asked and the kinds of follow-up we demand. we're used to making our husbands and children follow-up, and that does not work, either. >> we have come a long way. i got into the business of

covering politics when there were not as many. one of my most memorable lines, i had been hired as a secretary of an abc affiliate in atlanta, i kept pestering to let me go out to report. they said, we already have a woman reporter. we have come a very long way. >> advice do you give students and undergrads about the future of journalism careers? >> tell them jump in, the water is fine. coming into journalism when there is a huge transformation and change. we need smart, curious young people. there will always be questions that need answering, public officials that need to be held accountable, stories that need to be told, whether politics,

the law, science, the arts. think about what a big complicated, fascinated world we live in, and we need reporters to help tell those stories because we cannot individually go everywhere and learn everything ourselves. i see young people jumping in. the salary not be that great the first few years. you will work really hard. if you are curious, have a passion for reporting, jump in. gwen does a lot out on college campuses, and i know she agrees with me that the passion is there. >> i tell them to jump in, and their parents say, no, they're living in my basement now, please. [laughter] >> we're almost out of time, but i have a few things i want to remind you about. we have some upcoming luncheons.

the commandant of the u.s. marine corp will be here. on september 6, kathleen turner will discuss reproductive rights and the state of women's health. october 2, arne duncan will be here to speak. secondly, i would like to present our guests with our traditional coffee mugs. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> it makes sound bites go down much better. the last question for each of you, who will or who should governor romney choose as his vice-presidential candidate? that's >> easy. -- >> that's easy. he wants to lighten it up a little bit.

>> my vote is big bird, actually. that is all of you are going to get out of us. sorry. >> q very much for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's the event. a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club on our website, and if you would like to get a copy of our program, check out our website. thank you, and we are adorned. -- adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> mitt romney leaves israel

today to continue its foreign policy chipped in poland tomorrow. he will meet with the prime minister and a former president. wednesday mr. ronnie meets with the current president of poland and his foreign minister before returning to the united states on thursday. president obama will be traveling this week, campaigning in ohio, florida, and virginia. on wednesday he will be in mansfield and akron ohio. on thursday, he travels to orlando and leesburg, virginia, for campaign yvette's. >> we have to be really clear about the many ways that we own ourselves and we own our history, and we make decisions that our history is special. >> this sunday, your questions,

calls, emails for the author of "surviving and thriving." >> tim geithner on investigations into the possible impacts of the libor scandal of the u.s. financial system. secretary geithner eric said appropriate u.s. officials were notified about possible rate manipulation in 2008. this hearing is about two and a half hours.

>> the hearing will come to order. the committee is honored to welcome secretary geithner barrett 2 representative delivered the annual report. as previously noticed, under rules, time for opening statement is limited to 8 minutes for each side of the aisle. without objection, all members' written statements will be made part of the record. the chair recognizes mr. fitzpatrick 41 women -- one minute for an opening statement. >> thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning. we're interested in supporting the next crisis, and we can agree the best place to start is by doing no harm. this committee spent time examining the effect of dodd-

frank for companies to compete in light of the new additional burden spirit it is the opinion it hurts small businesses, but the more immediate issue remains lack of growth in the economy. high and increasing tax rates growth. last week it was a reported that increasing taxes will do more harm to our economy. i hope the ssc will address the pro-economic growth policies that americans are waiting for, lower budget deficits, small or regulatory policies. we look forward to your testimony. thank you, sir. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. duffie

for one minute. >> thank you for yielding. we are here to talk about the stability of the nation's financial system. as i travel in wisconsin i can tell you my constituents feel like the system is far from stable. they are concerned about the economy. i would like to hear your commentary on the libor scandal, the euro crisis, the american jobs crisis, the american economic growth crisis, the codification of too big to fail in dodd-frank, and i want to hear your views about why this has been the longest recovery since world war ii and what we can do to turn the ship around. i yield back. >> thank you, and thank you, mr. secretary. your work and your comments

about the act as a seat are so important and i share the concern that mr. fitzpatrick has ways regarding having a robust economy in the face of the new regulations being promulgated. the office of financial research and fsoc, i know we are working together to formulate the designation of non-banking financial companies as systemically important, and i have a letter i would ask unanimous consent to be introduced into the record regarding some concerns in terms of the coordination between fsoc and the ofr, and the entities themselves so we do not create a disruptive or compromising situation to promulgation of rules that might not be practically applied in the real world.

you have advocated for global cooperation in terms of extra territoriality, which i think is a very important stand. i do look forward to your testimony regarding how we go forward in a way that will be least disruptive. >> thank you. >> first, i would like to welcome the secretary and thank you for your extraordinary public service. this may be the last time that you testified before the financial services committee, and i really want to make sure that my appreciation and the appreciation of many americans are expressed to you and the gratitude for steering us through the worst financial crisis in our lifetime. certainly in my lifetime. i would like to hear today

about what it costs this country. last summer when we went into the debt ceiling and a crisis that ensued because congress could not make a decision, the hundreds of billions of dollars, what it meant to american families, and i would like to know, what would happen financially if we come up to that cliff again this summer, what is it going to mean for american families, and how much did it cost america during that crisis? i want to note the statement made earlier today by sandy weill, formerly ceo citibank,. and he said earlier this morning, what we probably should do it is go and split up investment banking from banking , at banks be deposit takers, at

banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that does not want to risk the tax payer dollars, that is not too big to fail. sanford weill, former citigroup ceo said today. that is a stronger statement than the full court ruled -- volcker rule, a return to glass- steagall, and the aim of the treasury department is not have this type of crisis began. your reaction to that, and i feel like hearing this statement is something we should act on. in libor, i would like to hear your statement about what you could do or what you could not do. england is a separate country.

to what extent can our country impose requirements on a foreign country? i would like to hear about the car industry. how was it that the treasury department with others were able and turn an industry that was failing into an industry that is now employing, expanding, and exporting? that is a terrific story of success. thank you for your role and leadership in achieving that for american workers and in many other ways. my time has expired. thank you. >> thank you. one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary. thank you for being here and for your service. i look forward to hearing exactly what the fsoc has done to make our financial system

stronger and more secure. one of the most obvious lesson of the plan at a crisis was the system had become too complex for banks and regulators. we have become overly reliant. instead of simplifying the system and reducing the amount of jurisdictional bickering between regulators, we decided to double down on a failed system instead of consolidating the number of regulators and providing clear responsibilities. we rewarded the failure of certain agencies and added three more bureaucracies for good measure. i hope to hear from you what fsoc has done to strengthen our regulatory system. i would like to hear what has been done to end too big to fail. rein in the behavior. most importantly, i will like to hold regulators accountable for being asleep at the wheel

during the financial crisis. i yield back. secretary geithner, thank you for taking your time to be with us. be to maximize private sector competitiveness while also ensuring economic stability. regulations are obviously necessary but they must be sensible and balanced. the rules must be transparent, unambiguous and enforced. anything less leaves us with unnecessary and potential negative consequences. diminished global competitiveness, racket enforcement, potential regulatory favoritism, higher costs and weaker economic growth and job creation. in many respects, our regulatory environment is not sensible or ballast. -- balanced. i do not think any of these are controversial points. president obama has called for rigorous cost-benefit analysis of existing regulations and proposed regulations.

so particularly, i am interested in how fsoc will contest a bird and regulations and adjust battles among regulatory agencies. i am also interested in whether you would recommend ways to simplify, and streamline and consolidate regulatory agencies themselves. the new york times has called dodd frank's failure to do so a lost opportunity. i think we might also have some bipartisan agreement on that point. i yield back. >> mr. sweichert of arizona. >> mr. secretary, almost the same thing you heard from other opening statement, we are engaged in a project where we are building a flow chart of the regulatory mechanics and try to predict some of the world propagation. the chart is becoming ridiculous. -- absolutely byzantine. to be becoming together to move towards a single point of contact, something much more

simple and understandable. has dodd frank created a structure that is unworkable for the future? and just as sort ofa personal side area, i would love to touch on -- bonds being issued. should we be moving much further up, back to the discussion of the super bonds? considering where interest rates are on the outside of the curve right now? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, as my retirement approaches, a certain amount of nostalgia is inescapable. i try not to indulge it. but i am overwhelmed with it today. it is 2006 all over again. when i was about to become chairman of this committee after the 2006 election, i was besieged by the wall street journal and the chamber of

commerce that we deregulate america. that if we did not dismantle sarbanes oxley and cut back on the oppressive regulation of the financial community, everybody would soon be in england or hong kong. what then happened was the worst collapse of the american economy in a long time because of the lack of regulation. people seem to have forgotten that. i am hearing again that the problems of the american economy are too much regulation. ben bernanke -- who i will remind people, when president george bush had an important economic appointment to make, he sent for the usual suspects who were always ben bernanke. he appointed him to be on the board of governors to the federal reserve in his first full year. then he made you chairman of the -- made him chairman of the economic advisers and then chairman of the federal reserve. he stayed at the most bipartisan person in this city.

as some of my colleagues have noted, he testified before us and heexcessive regulation was not onehe said there are all kinds of factors but he said no, it is not a significant head wind. europe is a head wind. and, of course, my colleagues on the other side have tried to retard the efforts of some to help with that. we are being told the problem is not enough freedom for the people whose irresponsibility cause this problem. we are being told to back off and that the regulations are too complicated for these poor people in the financial industry to understand. well, do you know what was too complicated for them to understand? they did not understand their own shenanigans. that is what got them into trouble. question of consolidation. people said we created these new agencies. there were to agencies that had -- there were two agencies that had similar functions. we consolidated those.

we consolidated those. so we got what -- the rate of one and created one new operating agency, the fsoc. it gets information. the can understand there are -- i can understand there are people who do not want us to have. but we did create one in new agency, the consumer financial protection bureau. we took from existing bank regulators the function of protecting consumers and make itit has been working very well hearings now in which we have is no oversight. their complaint is that we are standing up for consumers. as it recently did regarding capital one. i will acknowledge there is one major flaw in our structure -- we should not have a separate securities and exchange commission and commodities peter trading commission.

the biggest single that we have regulatory system was the decision to not regulate derivatives at all. we made a major breakthrough in the finance reform bill while regulating derivatives. we are just now getting those rules in place because 10 people have to be involved. five commissioners of the sec, five at the tsc. -- ftc. that split reflects a deep cultural and economic split in america. the commodities future trading commission was created many protecting theoretically farmers. the answer to predict security exchange committee -- i would like to get the consolidated. republicans talk about consolidation. they knocked about one out. i want to go back to the fundamental point -- the notion that the problem in america today with financial institutions is too much regulation, once a week we get a demonstration that that is not true.

the bank is lying about libor. it is a disgraceful situation. mr. jamie dimon of j.p. morgan is a well-regarded executives. they are justifiably well losing control of billions of dollars. they do not know how much money they have lost. capital one admitting that they had vendors who were treating consumer bureau stepped in. there have been problems in the past. we hada controller was not a good regulator in the sense of the banks. you will see a great deal of improvement. but the notion that our problem is too much regulation, i am a step by the people who make that -- i am struck by the percussion the -- the idea of people who make that comment. it is coming from people who were born apparently sometime in 2009. >> thank you, ranking member. new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, chairman and good

morning, mr. secretary. the american people were told when dodd frank was signed that they could -- these regulatory failures would be a thing of the past but over the last two years, we have seen massive scale regulatory failures. of mf global. in the last month, we have seen the collapse of bfg commodities, close to $200 million in customer funds missing. now i tremendous manipulation of the libor interest rates. that is something regulators might have known as far back as four years. so i am very interested in hearing american people to feel that these 400 new regulations will give them the comfort uncertainty they need to invest and come back into the markets? as someone nepalese like most

americans that we have the strongest economy -- who believes like most american that we have the strongest economy, will dodd frank lead to more american jobs? thank you, andi yield back. >> our last statement will come from the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the crisis of 2008 was caused by a number of factors. at this point, we can say with confidence that lack of authority by regulators was not one of them. instead of advancing age reform of our regulatory structure, dodd frank double down on the failures of the past by elevating the influence of the same agency that missed the last crisis. this notion that a new super council regulators will predict

the next financial calamity is a fallacy. it further distract regulators from their core duties, to police the financial markets. we have already seen an example of this with mf global. this is harmful for our financial system and i am eager to look into this matter further. i yield back. >> thank you. before i recognize secretary geithner, let me say that the secretary has indicated that he must leave at noon today. to accommodate as many members as possible, the chair announces that he will strictly enforce the five minute rule. members who wait until the final few seconds to ask a question of the secretary should be advised that it will be asked to suspend when the red light comes so we can allow other members to be recognized. without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. you are recognized for five minutes, a summary of your testimony. >> i ask unanimous consent to say hooray. for what you just said, and i hope will strongly enforce it. >> thank you. i know i have your cooperation. [laughter]

thank you. >> mr. secretary, you're recognized. the only thing that will not be strictly enforced is the five minutes on your statement. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for giving me another chance to testify today on the stability oversight council's>> i think it needs to be little louder. >> i am also happy to arrange other comments and questions you raised in your statements. we have made in a bit of progress in the united states preparing and reforming our financial system. we have forced banks to raise capital to reduce leverage and conservatively. the size of the shadow banking system that has fallen by a trillion dollars. the government has closed most of the emergency programs put in place during the crisis and recovered most of the

investments made into the financial system. on current estimates, the tarp bank investments will generate a profit of approximately $22 billion. expanding and the cost of credit has fallen to the thinly from the peaks of the crisis. these improvements have made financial system safer, less vulnerable to future economic and financial stress, more likely to help rather than to better able to absorber the impact of billions of individual financial institutions. we still face significant economic and financial challenges. the ongoing european crisis presents the biggest risk to our economy. the economic recession there is hurting economic growth around the world and the ongoing stress in financial markets in europe is causing a general tightening of financial

conditions, exacerbating the slowdown andhere in the united states, the economy is expanding but the pace of economic growth has slowed to a last two quarters. u.s. growth has been hurt by the earlier rise in oil prices, the ongoing reduction spending at slower rates of growth of household income. the slowdown could be exacerbated by concerns about the approaching tax increases and spending cuts and by uncertainty about the shape of the reforms to tax policy and spending that will be necessary to restore fiscal stability. -- sustainability. these potential threats repairing the remaining damage from the financial crisis and enacting reforms to make the system stronger for the long run. the regulators have made important progress over the last two years in designing and

implementing the regulations necessary to implement the reforms to call dodd frank. -- that you call dodd-frank. nine out of 10 of the rules with deadlines before july 2, 2012, have been proposed or finalized and the key elements of all will largely be in place by the end of this year. we have negotiated much tougher capital requirements with even higher requirements for the largest banks. we now have the ability to put the largest finance companies under enhanced supervision and standards, whether they are banks or nonbanks and also the ability to subject key market infrastructure firms to tougher prudential standards. the fcc is putting in place in -- the sec and the cftc are putting in place new framer for derivatives oversight, providing neutrals and bringing the derivatives market out of the shadows. and the consumer financial

protection bureau has worked to simplify and improve disclosure of mortgage and credit-card loans so the consumers can make better choices about how to borrow responsibly. this process of reform is very complicated. it is a complicated and challenging process because our system is complicated, the financials themselves are complicated. we want to target damaging behavior without damaging access to capital and credit. we want the reforms to indoor as the financial markets -- endure as the financial markets evolve over time. beyond the reforms enacted in dodd frank, the council put forward a number of recommendations to strengthen our financial system going forward. reforms are necessary to address remaining vulnerability is in the short term funding markets, and to mitigate the

risk of potential runs in the future on money market funds and to reduce interest date credit exposure in the secure funding market. the regulators should enforce strong protections for customer funds. benigno firms and regulators -- financial firms and regulators need to continue to improve risk-management practices, including strengthening capital buffers about complex trading strategies and other areas. the council recommends further improvement in the quality and availability of financial data. will continue to lead this effort as it has done so over the past year. finally, the council continues to support progress towards comprehensive housing pinelands reform that will be designed to bring private capital back into the housing market.

these recommendations will build on the considerable progress made by the members of the council over the past two years in making our system safer and more resilient, less vulnerable protections for investors and consumers. we have a lot of work ahead of us and we need your support to make these rules strong and effective. sure the enforcement agencies have the resources they need to prevent fraud and manipulation and abuse. i want to thank the other members of the council and their staff for the work they have done over the past year and want to underscore again that we look forward to working with this to build a stronger financialchairman. >> thank you. the chair deal to sell five -- the chair yields himself five minutes for questions. mr. secretary, it is widely reported that you discovered in 2007 that the world's biggest banks were manipulating libor. your own recommendations made

in an incentive to miss report. that raises substantial questions about the honesty of the libor submissions and presence of fraud. when did you alert the u.s. treasury and justice department of the possibility that libor was being manipulated and to whom did you state those concerns? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in 2008 as the financial crisis intensified and there were broader concerns about the european banks have libor -- banks. those libor rates began to rise. concerns were widely available in the market and were published in the wall street journal and "the financial

times," among other publications. at that time, this was in 2008, we took a careful look at these concerns. we thought they were justified. we took the initiative to bring those concerns to the attention of the broader u.s. regulatory committee, including market -- responsible for market regulation and the peace. i've read the president's working group on financial markets. working groups on financial markets. >> how about the justice department? >> the justice is not a member of that committee. >> you are aware of the possibility of fraud? next we were aware not just of >> oh we were aware of not just of the reports that banks were under reporting or mis reporting but that the nature of the rate set in london overseen by the british bankers'

association, a rate that has an average of what they might pay to borrow in 10 currencies of different maturities. >> we were aware 3 u.s. banks. >> 3 at that time. three of 16, now three of 18. we were aware of the risk, that is created not just the incentive for banks to underreport but given the opportunity to underreport. that was a problem. >> i know that he went to the action? >> the meet again explain what i -- let me again explain what i did. our fir instinct was not just community but to bring this to the british. i raise this with the governor -- i personally raised this with the governor sent him a detailed

memorandum recommending a series of changes. >> let me ask you -- he has denied having any evidence of rigging or misconduct but according to what you supplied him, his testimony would not be correct. is that right? >> i felt that we did the important of all the appropriate thing which is to bring the attention to the people not just here but the british and not just the reports available in the public domain but the range of problems in the way this rate was designed. -- we brought those concerns to their attention. i still believe this, we felt it would be on them. >> what action was taken at that time to address concerns that libor was being misreported?

that there was the existence of fraud and rigging? >> what the cftc did was ultimately took four years that resulted in the strong enforcement response esau announced earlier this month. -- you saw announced earlier this month. ultimately, that investigation brought in the sec and justice. >> fleming ask you this last -- let me just ask you this last question -- you used libor to set the aig and the $100 billion understated. for the taxpayer -- >> we were in the position of investors around the world. in many cases, you have to choose a rate. we did what everybody else did

which is to use the best rate available at the time. we are all taking a careful look. this is a matter of litigation. as you know, not just the on going enforcement of the investigations, to what extent the rate was moved up or down or actually affected. we do not know yet what the results of those discussions will be. i cannot speak to them but you are right to point out that we like investors around the world had to take advantage of the rate available at the time. we chose libor at that point. as did many others. >> thank you. mr. frank? congressman frank? >> thank you. mr. geithner, i just want to get the context. you. mr. geithner, i just want to get the context because what's some of the financial institutions of the world behaved in an outrageous fashion. these were not bad guesses about derivatives. these were not over confidence about mortgages. this was conscious deception of

their own self-interest done not just by individuals but an association that was given powers to self regulate in some ways. when i hear my colleagues talk about the need for more self regulation, libor comes to mind as a strong reputation. part of this that is troubling to me -- in the press, there has been an effort to blame you for this because you happen now to be the secretary of the treasury in the obama administration. it seems to be extraordinary. you were an important but not one of the top officials. i did not mean to denigrate you. the presidency of the federal reserve is an important institution. importance recently than it ever has before. people want to say you were running the world back then. you had a chairman of the federal reserve setting the libor to set the rates. mr. bernanke was in charge of aig. treasury paulson. administration of president bush.

and the president's working group to which you were reported was that. and the working group with mr. paulson, etc. i stress that because there was a failure to be tough enough with these private sector people doing this but the notion that it was all the department of the federal reserve in new york is striking. i want to be very clear. you reported this to the president working group on financial reform. who are the members of that group? who were they in 2008? give me names. >> the chairman of the federal reserve, the chairman of the sec and the secretary of the treasury. >> all right, so we have four. >> probably the chairman of the fdic at that stage but those were the core members. >> but these were all bush appointees. i think this is a problem not

of private-sector and that the british because this was a burgess association. -- a british association. but if people are going to start pointing fingers at regulators, you were not a presidential appointee. appointee. >> no. >> no. >> so these were five or six people above you to whom you were reported what you found and maybe things were not done tough enough. the cftc did begin the investigation, which culminated in this. so we have a situation where private banks formed in a british association but american bank participation previously -- grievously misbehaved. you hear about it, reported to the financial work group consisting of bush appointees, many of whom live value highly, and with whom i worked closely in 2008, that not enough was done to take a responsibility. but ask you this about too big to fail -- the legislation says

that's a large part nestle -- if a large financial institution cannot pay its debts, it is put out of business and no money can be spent by the federal government on the process of putting it out of business. i mean death. these are the -- they were for big banks. the financial reform bill. the ceo and other officers have gone. the shareholders are wiped out. that is what the law says. the law also said if there is any money that had to be spent to wind it down responsibly, you or your successor is mandated to -- not authorized -- recover it. president of the federal reserve of dallas and his staff, that that's not going to work because it there was a failure, there would be pressure on you or your funds to keep that institution alive.

do you think that is likely? >> i would not have the authority. >> you would be breaking the law to do that? what congress did it change the law to limit the authority available to the regulators to mistakes. >> they are then put out of business. by the way, there are some now who lament that. there is a new book out by mr. conrad, a managing director of bain, complaining that we have restricted the ability of the federal regulators to intervene to save an institution to much. but i appreciate your point. if a large institution fails, you would have no option under the law but to have it fail and the banks. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary.

hensarling. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. i do not quite understand your answer concerning the fed's use of libor. i think you have said that we acted very early in response. we were concerned about it but it appears that the early response was to keep using it which means it appears you treated it almost as a curiosity or something akin to jaywalking as opposed to highway robbery. i think i heard you earlier in your testimony say "it was our best choice." there are other interest rate index is out there. has been manipulated possibly be the best choice? >> we were concerned about this and we did the important very consequential thing of bringing it to the attention of the full

complement of regulatory authorities that congress had given responsibility and authority for market manipulation of use. -- manipulation abuse. use it. yes or no? >> of course not. >> ok. >> i think that was the right choice back then. >> to include a manipulated number and a non manipulated number? >> i would not say it this way. it was a rate that was structured in a way that was vulnerable to miss reporting. we were very concerned. well we decided to do was try to initiate a reform of the process with the british but also make sure that the relevant authorities made use of it. >> we have a limited amount of time. i would like to ask another question. as i review the annual report, i see a lot of discussion of the

european debt crisis. i see little discussion of the u.s. debt crisis. this country has now racked up more debt in the last three years than in the previous 200. our debt to gdp ratio exceeds our economy. even the president's own budget after the tenure window states -- after the 10-year window states the fiscal situation deteriorates badly. the president has previously said that the major driver of long-term debt is medicare and medicaid, our health care spending. nothing comes close. that was in 2009. i have yet to see a reform plan or entitlements spending out of this administration. you testified before the budget committee in february and this year -- of this year. he said paul ryan was right to

say being ministration is not coming before you today to say that we have a definite solution to the long-term problem. what we do know is we do not like yours. that was in february. i assume i have not missed any of the news clips that the administration has come out with a plan. so if the president says this is a major driver, we know that the head of the federal reserve also spoke about are unsustainable spending driven by entitlementi cannot find one mention of the word entitlement or medicare or medicaid. yet your own budget says fiscal situations deteriorates badly. how can this not be sided as a major factor that could disrupt u.s. financial stability? when is the administration going to move on this? >> the fsoc's councils job is not to recommend solutions to

our long-term fiscal crisis. we agreed that our fiscal deficits are unsustainable. >> what is chapter 3 of this report all about? does this not impact the competitiveness and stability of u.s. financial markets? >> we identified in the report that these brought term long -- brought long-term risks are a significant risk to the economy and therefore the financial system. >> you make no recommendation on what is actually driving according to the president of the united states, the debt crisis. thing to ask the fed to recommend a detailed medicare reform plan.

that would be a strange thing. you are right to say it is a risk. the council is right to highlight the risk but i do not think it is correct to say the council should have laid out reform recommendations for restructuring -- >> perhaps next time you could help me with a highlighter. >> thank you. ms. waters? >> thank you very much. according to angelo, a professor -- to andrew lo, a professor at mit, this libor scan looks -- this libor scam looks worse in the financial scam in the history of markets. i will like you to tell me if you think that statement is true. i would also like to know what impact this manipulation had on our financial markets and what impact it would have movingtake time to tell us about your

series of changes that you recommended. i would like to give you time and not take all the time so please go ahead. >> let me just say a bit about you for giving me the chance to in the detailed recommendations we gave to the british, we identified specific things that would make it untenable for this rate to be affected by the banks' incentive to lower their reported cost of funds. we keep them there is specific detailed changes for doing that. if those had been adopted,sooner, you would have limited this risk going forward. right now, let me highlight a few things we think are important given where we are today. you will want to know what is next. he does give me a minute. the fsoc and relevant agencies -- the fed, the sec and tftc, are looking at how to address any potential implications of this remaining challenge for the financial system. these bodies are carefully

examining other survey based measures of interest rates and financial prices overseen by private financial firms to assist in the potential there for miss reporting similar problems. they are carefully examining a broad range of potential reforms and alternatives for libor. there is a global effort led by the financial stability for which includes all of the world's major central banks and regulators together in a global effort to review potential reforms we are considering how to deal with the careful and delicate question of how do we make it possible for an fourth agencies -- enforcement agencies that reveals behavior that could impact the financial system as a whole? how to make it possible for them to share that information with appropriate safeguards with the relevant agencies that have responsibility to the overall functioning of the system?

a very important question. we need to take a careful look rely or the market allies still on informal private bodies run by financial firms like the british bankers' association that have some formal or informal self regulatory role. a very important question yourwe all need to make sure that these enforcement agencies have the resources they need to do their job. you have a small town with a police department. the population of that town increases by 10, 100 times. you will need to increase theit is the necessary and responsible thing to do. if we do that, you will have a more powerful deterrent. tougher enforcement that well, earlier with a broader affects for all of us. -- with a broader -- with

broader effects for all of us. in addition to the things, we will cooperate fully and be fully responsive for broader information on this and we will brief the congress on the progress of each of those efforts looking at applications and how to reduce the the future. >> given those recommendations and the problems we have had with the economic meltdown in this country, what else can interest rates that are being paid between the banks is fair and equitable and somehow will not negatively impact a person who is taken out a mortgage in the united states? >> i think what you should do is what you're doing. you are conducting oversight of these agencies and you should

these agencies on the reforms under way to address that risk. that is fully a profit. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and good morning, mr. secretary. i have a question about the president's working group on there is an article that said that if the president's group was briefed on financial markets in june of 2008, i assume you are president of the new york fed -- we briefed them. >> does that mean you did it or someone else from the fed? >> i went to provide -- i was

not a member of the group but i occasionally went. my staff subsequently briefed officials of the treasury. >> you're the chairman of the group right now? >> yes, i am chairman of the council. >> in relation to that meeting you had and the meetings you have had sense, do keep detailed>> we do keep minutes of the meetings and we put them in the public record. with whatever the opprobrious lag is. -- be appropriate lag is. >> how often do those meetings lead to policy changes where you make a decision and it meant changes? >> the congress gave it two different sets of authorities. one is responsibility for things like designating financial market utilities that

have systemic implications. that is a specific responsibility the fsoc has. it gave a broader responsibilities to make sure you are not leaving large gaps in the system. agencies are working together, not against each other. that is a more general situation, not specific. >> not specifics. on libor, i do not want to get into the details of fraud and who committed crimes and who should be punished. what not. i want to talk about the principle. the principle here is that people are complaining because they believe libor was fixed. the interest rates were fixed. and that it benefited somebody financially. i do not think there is a big that is what barclays was penalized for it. but isn't this like what the federal reserve does? are today fixing interest rates all the time for the benefit of special individuals -- aren't they fixing interest rates all the time for the benefit of specific individuals?

if banks get into trouble, interest rates are lowered. right now, interest rates are like zero and banks get a lot of free money. they turn it around and put it back and earn interest. they buy treasury bills. they are doing quite well. it seems that there is a tremendous amount of manipulation of interest rates for the benefit of some individuals but as manipulation -- but this manipulation of interest rates harms people who save money. if they are retired and cannot earn anything, it seems like -- in the sense of morality and of what we are accusing of libor of doing. now, they may have, the fed may be protected by rules and laws but isn't there about the manipulation of interest rates for the special benefits of some individuals at the fed does this?

>> i would not make any comparison. no. i do not think they are remotely similar. the fed with authority congress gave it to maintain -- >> i am not talking about the authority but what they did. i recognize that. >> but the fed is doing is with the responsibility congress gave it to keep prices low and stable over time. and unemployment low over time. it is using a set of tools in the public interest to achieve those objectives. i would say it's a fundamentally different thing from the behavior of individual banks to misreport the price they are paying to borrow -- >> i do not think we will resolve that because i have another quick question. we support change in policy -- will you support change in policy with the fed can buy debt from the treasury directly? it would not go through the bond brokers, where they make such a huge commission. wouldn't this be better for the american taxpayer? >> for the fed to directly

finance? >> why can't they buy treasury? instead, we have 20 or so bond dealers, and i think they make some commissions on this. the fed buys these bonds and bond dealers make money off this. >> let me be careful answer this question. let me just tell you that i, personally, i am a strong defender of to strong principles, one is to make sure the fed has a full there is nothing in this relationship between the fed and the treasury that would raise concern that the federal reserve is directly financing the fiscal deficits of the united states. that would be something very damaging to the fed's independence and to the fiscal credibility of the united states. i do not think that is what you are implying. of course, i know you would not support that at all, so maybe i should talk to you in questions about the market>> thank you. >> mr. maloney, five minutes.

maloney, five minutes. >> thank you for your >> thank you for your service. it is absolutely huge in writing on what doe sandy has called for the breakup of the big banks. i would like a detailed answer on what this means to the financial crisis in investment- banking and banking have been separated, what would that have meant for aig, lehman, wachovia, all of the big banks? now which is libor. and the debt ceiling crisis and what is meant and financial loss to the american families last summer and what it could mean in the future. but, specifically on libor, was this a british problem or a united states problem? >> it was a rate set in london that has implications far beyond london. not just the united states but in financial markets around

the world. >> was it set by an association in the united states or elsewhere? who set it? >> it was said by a group of banks in great britain. >> for you aware of any other -- were you aware of any other members of the president's working group following this working group following this issue? as you know, the cftc started at that time a very far reaching -- it were to their credit -- with a range of authorities. their credit investigation ultimately involved a range of >> did the new york fed have way? >> the new york fed has a range of of 40, but the enforcement authority rests with the board of governors in washington, not with the individual reserve

banks, but the other agencies that are a part of our system, and it is a complicated system, as many of you have said, with a range of responsibilities, including market manipulation and abuse. >> would you have taken any action against barclays or the head of the new york fed at the time? >> i do not think the secretary of the treasury then or now has direct authority relevant to that. congress has given that agency to the other authorities, which is appropriate. >> would you have taken action against barclays at the new york fed? >> i have thought a lot about this, as you might expect. i think we did the right thing very early in the process. >> well can you put this in context in terms of the other things you were working on in 2008? i know i was getting calls from

my constituents, screaming that there was a run on the markets, there was a fear of a complete financial meltdown -- what was it like for you? what were you working on in 2008? can you put this into context of what was happening at the time? >> you are right to remind us that during that period, it got much worse and later, but at that time, the pressures here and around the world were very acute, and they were creating a real risk of a broader run or a collapse of the financial system. the situation was many quarters old at that time. it was strictly going to get dramatically worse. and, of course, we have a lot to do at that point, but on libor, again, we were worried about this. we were concerned about it, and that is why we did what we did at that time, despite the other

preoccupations. >> can you comment on the debt ceiling crisis that this country suffered through last summer? what did it cost american families, and what would happen if we had yet another debt ceiling crisis, if we went over the cliff again, in terms of pain, suffering, an increase in the deficit, an increase in the unemployment? can you explain what the impact was last summer, and what can it be if we cannot get together and come forward with a reasonable agreement? >> the threat of default that hung over the u.s. economy during that period of time in june, july 2011 was very damaging. it caused economic growth to slow at a very early and vulnerable time during the recovery. it caused stock prices in the u.s. and around the world to fall very sharply, doing great damage to the average american.

it caused a lack of consumer and business confidence. it was larger than you see in a typical recession, very damaging, very substantial, completely avoidable, not necessary, and it would be irresponsible to put the country through that again. >> my time has expired. this may be the last time you testified before us. thank you for your public service. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much, and, mr. secretary, thank you for being here also. in the 18 years i have been in congress, the iraq war, which was very unnecessary, and the repeal of glass-steagall. i was here with many of my colleagues, some at the dais today, when president bush and secretary paulson called on

congress to bail out people who, in my opinion, where gambling on wall street with the taxpayers' money, and we bailed out those in trouble. well, i did not vote for it then, so i will not take the blame on that one, but it seems that every time the financial institutions get in trouble, they come to the congress and the taxpayer and say, "we need for you to help us out." well, you know, mr. jamie dimon in the last week's first technology that they had made a $2 billion mistake in investments, i guess. then it later became $10 billion, and the american people are just tired and sick and fed up with -- i think a lot of it, quite frankly, if i could vote today, we might could bring some

sanity to this issue that we are talking about, the financial institutions, and really have oversight that we should have, but we are not going to change the way we finance campaigns, and you could not change it if you wanted to. but my question is, is it not time to have a discussion and a debate about the reinstatement of glass-steagall? >> congress thought about that very carefully in the context of the dodd-frank discussions, and i am sure it will consider in the future again, and that is an appropriate thing to do, but the reforms congress enacted were very tough and very strong. they forced banks to hold much, much more capital against risk, and the large banks hold more than the small banks. that is a very important thing. they limit how big the banks can get. that is a very important thing.

and as your colleague said earlier, they deprive the institutions of government from the ability to come in and rescue a bank from its failures. all we can do is try to protect the economy from mistakes that the banks make, and that is inevitable. we can try to prevent them from making mistakes. our job is to make sure that when they make mistakes, they do not imperil the broader economy and people's savings, making it harder for businesses to borrow, and this was the toughest, most far reaching than the u.s. has ever experienced or complicated -- or contemplated. i expect congress to keep doing that. you should always go back and examine these judgments, but i think that there were constraints against the risks you said, and we should give those reforms a chance to work.

>> mr. chairman, i appreciate your comments. i think that for too long, we continue to -- i mean, i was one of the few republicans to vote with dodd-frank. it was a decision i made that there was more good than bad in the legislation and that if it was properly implemented, it may do what was necessary to bring some honesty and integrity to the markets. therefore, i hope that most of my colleagues will give dodd- frank a chance. maybe there are certain aspects of it that need to be reviewed, and that is true in any complex legislation, but i continued to say that i would hope that we would take a serious look. to reinstate glass-steagall. i am not trying to interpret your words, but it seems to me

that it would be the benefit to at least have a hearing from experts, you being one, about the possibility of reinstating aspects of glass-steagall for certain types of banks, but with that, mr. chairman, i thank the secretary for his answers to my question very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes mr. d eddie perez 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. first of all, i would like to go back. how did you find out about the libor manipulation? how did you find out about that? >> as i said earlier, there was a lot of concern in the market. much of which was ultimately published in major newspapers of record, about not just the potential that banks could represent what they were paying to borrow, but they were

actually doing that, so we first learned of those concerns, at least i personally first learned of those concerns in 2008, and we acted very quickly. >> and you learned about it through news media reporting? >> no, we learned about it through a variety of ways. as you know, the new york fed spends a great deal of time talking to people about what is going on in the market, so it was based on those reports, not just what was in the press. >> so what did you do as a consequence of that publicly or privately in order to respond to what you're seeing work manipulations in the libor rate? >> first, we took a very careful look to see if there was any basis for those concerns, and we thought there was. >> ok. >> and then we briefed the various members of the american oversight body rigid bodies,

meaning the fed, the sec, the cftc, the ftc, and many others. and then we wrote a detailed memorandum with very specific detailed recommendations on how to fix it, and they responded affirmatively to those recommendations, said they shared the concern, support the recommendations, and would pursue them. >> to the best of your knowledge, the investigation that led to the $453 million fine against a barclays and the continuing investigation began where? >> well, that is a question you should refer to the cftc, but i believe they have said that their investigation began in roughly the same time period, april 2008. >> so this begins at the moment you are made aware as head of the new york reserve and carry at your responsibilities, and then you informed