shallow areas. these are all kinds of policies -- randy has talked about regulation and small businesses trying to talk -- try to deal with a myriad of regulations, and they find it daunting. ityou go above the number of employees and people say okay, i'm going to do 49 and after that, we have two part-time jobs instead of one full-time job because it would qualify me under the regulations. these are the types of policies we have seen. we have not policies to stimulate growth or stimulate the economy and let the economy go. we have seen policies that focused on the winners and losers in the economy. they're trying to adjust the mix rather than allow for growth and

so we will do small business policies small businesses are integrated with big businesses. it's a much more of synergistic relationship than the administration will admit and it may be much more synergistic and some other republicans in the house and senate seat because many, many small businesses sell to big businesses. small businesses were default out of big businesses and these have a business cafeteria but now have an outside smaller business that services the cafeteria give it. we have companies that manufactured very specific products that were sold into it. we have a member with a foundry in the upper part of michigan and have a relatively small business with just over 100 employees. he used to sell into the auto

industry. he was able when the auto industry fell into a problem, he was able to change his business and sell bridge castings to the city of new york. these things are as big as this room and they add that, but he is struggling with what is going on without care of laws and different types of labor laws, and the access to capital in this particular instance was not addressed very well. if we have a situation where policies didn't really address -- they went out and said we're going to reap capitalize the banks. but they didn't do the small banks well enough and an arab league to extend the policies to the small banks but then they did not address the next step and the transition mechanism. how do you get banks to lend it to smaller businesses? one thing you don't do is go

beat them up over the rest standards. yet that is what happened in dodd-frank. it wasn't a mistake, it was an intent. that tends to paralyze the flow of credit. on one end, you had the fed opening the spigot and then they blow up to them. they dumped money in buckets like they had never done before and what happened? the money goes into the excess reserves pile. if you look at the total amount the fed purchases, of that money went to excess reserves, reserves that are not helping lending, reserves that are not allowing the flow of credit to move one step down the line. the policies were very desperate. they did not address some of the areas where we could create jobs and actually retarded the job

growth in other areas and they really didn't fix anything. we had dodd-frank, and before that, we had sarbanes-oxley. they dragged jamie dimon up on capitol hill to grill them over a business loss. this was not money he stole a, this was money the bank invested and they have an investment that went south. he said it went south and we're going to do something differently. and i have congressional hearings on this? this does not help the situation. this is not federal money that he lost or taxpayers money he gave away. it was a business decision that did not work out. when you look at that particular plant and those investment decisions, there are many, many more good and profitable decisions and bad

decisions. this is not where congress should be -- they are not good at it. they haven't produced a budget in how many years? let's get back to policies that are pro-growth policies that help invigorate the economy and encourage them to take risks and create jobs all during the downturn. we heard from the administration a vilification of risk. risk is bad. risk is not bad. risk is necessary. you have to have risk to generate returns. you want to risk to be evaluated. you want the risk to be reasonable. you do not want the willy-nilly extension of risk. but by the same token, if you don't have risk, you don't have return. risk-return, trade off.

it is the investment frontier. if you do away with risk, you do away with return and you do away with jobs creation. day tech risk with your money. they took risks in many cases with their own money. sometimes those risks turned out not to be well-founded and there was money that was lost. in order to keep the system together, the government came back and backstops the economy. that is kind of what governments are supposed to do. in the case of this morning, it was announced the treasury is selling off another big chunk of their a.i.g. stock. from what i understand, they are not selling it off at a loss. the fact that the government backstop the auto industries and backstop the banks. -- the government didn't lose a penny on at the tarp loan to the banks. collectively, they made money on

the acquisition of the warrants that were eventually sold off. it was taxpayer money at risk, but it was a good investment from the point of view of the government. they kept the system operating, although not as well as it was before, and they were able to recoup that money for the taxpayer. i think that's what governments are supposed to do, but standing up and saying don't take any risk is not generating growth. that is the message we get out of this administration far too often. >> i was just wondering what your priority is in the remaining month and a half running up to the election? where do you see the most important target? is that the congressional level or presidential level and you are talking about issues? >> we only have two weeks left

in this congress and who knows what lame-duck -- i've spent 10 years on the hill and alcan down the road. we're hopeful to try to move the bill to the house providing some green card relief and foreign graduates of american universities with the crees and master's in it science, technology and math. we're working on that. there are writers in the bill dealing with extended and they will vote on soon. there are two weeks left. you tick off what you can get done and those are not my top two. >> the first thing is the fiscal cliff.

they should do something sooner rather than later than letting the economy go over the cliff. they've got to do something in the very near future, next year, probably, on coming together with an approach to address the deficit. the deficit and debt problems can be finessed for a while and the world economy seems to be giddy with giving us money. they lent to us at literally nothing. they are that stressed out about their prospects elsewhere are on the world and we are a great repository and in the sense that we have a good rule law and people think we will pay it back and that is why they lend it to us. but at some point, of that or to get called into question, we would be in a bad way. we have 16 trillion dollars of total debt, nine trillion to help my people, and these

outside the federal government, a lot of that is short-term debt and a zero interest rate. what happens if interest rates go up one percentage point? what is the carrying cost of nine trillion dollars? $90 billion? it goes up 2 percentage points -- let's say it went up to where the normal short-term interest rates have been. he looked at the last 20 years, it is up around 3%. that would be $270 billion a year in additional interest on just the outstanding debt today. that is where our longer run problem lies. at some point, the largess of our neighbors around the world may run out and if it does that may start charging us what would be a more normal market rate, we are in a world of hurt. the short run fiscal cliff, the

longer run, we have to get this debt situation under control. not necessarily fixed, but it stabilized and going in the right direction. >> you were talking about these charts and graphs and he painted a picture that these things are happening and it sort of separate from politics and who is in office and who is in charge, but the people running for office, obama would they would need more time to make sure things are going to continue to improve for romney saying need to go in a completely different direction. what can be done >> they all get fact check to death. its a good question. there is a bit of truth in all of them and in the context is where you get shades of gray.

did they put the context the way you would of or i would have, that is where the games get played. in the short run, the things that get done politically, the laws that get past do have an impact and in the long run, the economic forces tend to will out. if you create a bad incentive, you may not see it right away because there is something else creating noise in the short run. that is why economists need the data for a long time. they have to weed out the factors that have to capture that long run trend. what they do does matter, but there are limits to what they can do it in a single economic cycle and sometimes they will do the right thing and you don't see a big impact right away. bill clinton raised taxes in

1993 and you did not see the tax code at all. when you start to apply as higher tax rates on to the attack bubble, all of a sudden you had huge accumulations of revenue. we collected from businesses. 12% of the total federal take and how much revenue we collected in general relative to gdp peaked in 2007 or 2008 because you have these higher tax rates. until then, it didn't look like they were raising any more money. to those higher tax rates have a negative impact? if you look at 2008 -- in 1998 and 1999, the tail end of the taxable, you would have thought higher taxes have no impact all

and had generated growth because of higher taxes occurred in 93. in fact, it was just the tech bubble which was pretty much unaffected. bush comes in and cut taxes and everybody says this going to lower the tax burden and it did. the total tax take came down, but then it started to climb back up again because the economy picked up because we were coming out of a recession. the nature of the economy and what was happening elsewhere made it look like increasing taxes generated more growth and cutting taxes generate more growth because we actually have fairly low growth rates. they picked up but they were very low for the time. most people say the bush tax cuts, the deficit if you're on the democratic side. if you look at the book but tax

cuts in 2001 and 2003 and the total tax take, the tax take was a very low because the economy less off. then you cut taxes and it hard to say did they cause the revenue numbers or what. the economy started to pick up some steam and all of a sudden, the total tax take starts rising toward its long-term trend that got up about 18%. the contribution of corporations to the federal revenue increased in the last three years before the recession contributed a over 14.5% of total federal revenues were contributed by corporate federal income taxes. the highest number in the clinton administration was 12.6 grade so here when he raised

taxes, the corporate contributions never got above 13%. yet when bush cut taxes, the corporate contributions rose to 14%. was that due to just a tax credit? no period was due to the fact that a big tech bubble and a resurgence with some of the manufacturing companies. to extraneous things. policy matters more and no longer run. in the short run, the ability of the government to turn off or on this which the group and on or off switch or federal reserve injections of money tend to be limited and tend to operate with long and variable lags. just as you start to see the benefits, something else will come in and offset it. you have to sift through the data and in this political season, the associations we see from both sides -- one side tend

to irritate me or any other. but the fact of the matter is there is a much greater than that between a policy and the economy in the short run in the minds of politicians than in the minds of economists. in the long run, these policies matter and it matters that we get them right. in the shorter run, the idea that mr. x raised taxes and then you saw a resurgence in revenues and a decline in the deficit and someone else cut taxes and we saw a decline in revenues in the immediate term, it has to be sifted through and you have to look at the facts rather than making these off the cuff associations. that being said, will probably go back and write three or four off the cuff associations.

>> about one year ago, president obama put forward his jobs bill which did not go anywhere but it seemed to address your concerns with things not in the first stimulus. do you have any concerns congress can act on anywhere of the jobs bill? >> not at all. i think the jobs bill was focused on realigning interest groups. people talk about a small business -- we're going to do something just for small business. i don't know any policies out there can be that finally focused. the republicans have done the same thing that you have to focus on the economy of the whole and not just a piece of the economy that you think you want to help. that is what has messed up our tax code for 30 years. putting these one office in the

tax code that say will put a subsidy and for milk production from brown cows because we really want to help the brown cow industry. we don't want the white and black house, we want the brown house. there's all kinds of stuff like that in the tax code and it doesn't make sense. obama's small-business bill was focused on redistribution rather than collective expansion. running that's the biggest mistake of this administration. he continues to focus on redistribution of income rather than creation of income. we talk now about the tax code and at the reforms in the tax code proposed by the administration. we want to raise taxes on rich and not anyone else. and that because you don't think the rich contribute to the economy or invest the money? and why do you want to tax this

particular group and now that one? the answer is redistributive. they don't pay their fair share. they pay a proportionally higher share. they control 22 percent of the income and pay 40% of the federal income tax -- they control 22% of the income and pay 40% of the federal income tax. we also did not support some of the republican ideas. we have small businesses and big businesses and we love them. we see the synergies between small business and big business, not antagonism. they'll do better in and an economy that is taxed appropriately and and some allies appropriately rather than one versus the other. >> that includes everything. thank you for coming.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> scrapping appear with the chamber of commerce as they complete their briefing here today. congress returns from their august break this afternoon. the house will gavel in at 2 eastern. members will debate setting federal spending for the next budget year as well as extending federal surveillance. in the house why here starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate will vote on a judicial nomination for iowa. later this week, debate on a veterans' jobs bill. the house is live here on c-span and the senate is on the c- span2. c-span3 will be live with a

discussion of defense policy, the brookings institute hosting a conference on the differences between president obama and it romney. that's live at 1:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. at 3:30, c-span3 will go back to the king's institute for a discussion on national security and terrorism. there highlighting 12 major issues facing the next president. that starts at 3:30 eastern on c-span 3.

>> vice-president joe biden continued his swing. ohio last weekend. he spoke yesterday at a rally in portsmouth. ♪

♪ >> hello, portsmouth. it's great to be here. on the way down, ted strickland, the closer we got, he said the closer we are getting to heaven. i tell you what, wasn't this guy magnificent at the convention? [applause] until he spoke, i didn't know what romney was going to this guy is amazing. what a difference a governor makes. [applause]

melanie, thank you for this introduction. everyone wants to get up on sunday morning and say of that to introduce the vice-president in front of all those cameras. you're very gracious and i appreciate all your hard work, not just today, but what you have been doing for us for a long time. thank you very much. [applause] if my dad were still around, he did say be polite and please excuse my back. but it nice to have you -- nicety to have my back. it's great to be in a high school whenever great athletes and really bright students. the guys are something else. i'll understand you have some great ballclub submit your basketball team went to the finals two years in a row? [applause]

your status were finalists in the quiz bowl? you guys are something else. it's usually one or the other but you've got both. it really is great to be here. ted has been my friend for a long, long time. he has been my guide it through ohio. i am made delaware senator all my life, until i became vice president, but my home is where i was born and raised early on, in pennsylvania. and this is kind of like going home. if you know in northeastern pennsylvania, you will not be surprised. it's not a whole lot different than southern ohio or actually a lot of parts of ohio. i feel really comfortable here. i've been here a lot and i plan on coming back a lot. [applause]

as it had pointed out in his convention speech, and this is not hyperbole, he pointed out this country faces the starkest choice for president of the united states that has in that least my lifetime. that means in all of your lifetime. but for all the talk governor romney and congressman ryan have engaged in, they do not have the courage yet to tell you what their policies for this nation really are. it will shock you, i have the courage to tell you this morning with their policies are. [laughter] it's amazing if you listen to them. they talk so much about how they care about medicare. you would think it was a republican idea the way they talk about it. you think it was republicans supporting it. they talk about how they want to preserve it.

they do it sincerely and talk about how they sincerely want to preserve and protect the benefits for all those people, guaranteeing all those people on medicare now, the 30 million seniors that nothing will change. if you listen to them these days, you would think that had been a republican plan all along. that's what they say and that is what they exude believe, and these are facts. they don't tell you that there fan with a meat -- their plan would immediately cut benefits for 30 million seniors in wellness visit and prescription drugs. it would cut benefit immediately for those on medicare right now. what they don't tell you is what they are proposing would actually cause the medicare trust fund that they want to protect, it would cause the medicare trust fund to run out of money by 2016. that's a fact.

most important of all, what they don't tell you, they are not actually for preserving medicare in the first place. usualt making the argument that with republicans -- remember back with gingrich, and they have a different plan. they have a fundamentally different plan. it is called voucher care. i call a doctor care. it is vouchers. here is what it is going to be. they hear public official stand up and say the other guy thinks this for this guy thinks that. they stand back and say i know, but let me tell you what they are for real. they have laid it out. and they voted for these kinds of things in the republican house of representatives, congressman bryant budget. here's what they talked about. they talk about giving your mama voucher, a coupon worth a certain amount of money.

they say now you go out there in the insurance market and bargain for the best deal you can get. seriously. this is not a joke. if it turns out, if you want to stay in medicare, you can bargain and get back in medicare, but if the about we give you is less than the benefits you get now, you have to make up the difference. ryan's first plan which everyone got to look at and was passed by the republicans, the experts said that cost from an extra $6,400 a year of her pocket. no one knows exactly what this new plan will cost, but it is the same principle. you are out of medicare and you get to buy back into it or some other plan and don't worry, the market will take care of you. [laughter]

and they talked so much about the national debt. they talk about the great urgency and the need to bring it under control and back now. we agree. we absolutely agree. but let me tell you what they didn't tell you. not once did they tell you that day, meaning romney, ryan, the republican congress, and i have negotiated with the republican congress, not once, not once for any of the outside plans, the expert plans put there, that thing they call simpson-bowles, not once did they sinon if required even $1 or 1 cent in additional taxes for millionaires. they rejected every single plan put forward. not once. ladies and gentlemen, the urgency, the urgency, these two

men seeking to lead the country over the next four years have fundamentally different versions and visions of what america should look like. and they have a completely different values that. president obama and the governor romney are both great husbands and a great father's. but that is where the similarities end. don't confuse that. that is where the similarity ends. governor romney, for example, believes -- you always talk about the global economy. a lot of you heard about the global economy when they shut down your plants. it is real. he thinks in the global economy, it does not matter where an american company put their money or where they create jobs. over the past few days, i have been here in ohio and i turn on the television early in the

morning or late at night and i see these ads running on television with -- i am paraphrasing -- it says president obama wants to ship your jobs to china. [laughter] romney is going to get tough on china and bring jobs back to ohio and so on. china? creating jobs? not creating jobs? it is incredible. if it wasn't so important, it would be humorous. but ladies and gentlemen, this comes from a man whose company was referred to in the national press as a pioneer of outsourcing jobs from ohio to other places. this man who said if, in fact, the federal government got involved with helping the automobile industry restructure, at general motors would be the walking dead.

this man who criticize the president and me for being protectionist -- we are protectionist. when we stood up and said don't deal unfairly with our tire manufacturers, we want to make sure it is level. [applause] by the way, we won. he called us protectionist for enforcing trade agreements for a fair deal for american car companies, which, by the way, they are making more tires here in america. more people are working in america. [applause] this guy runs an ad like he's running? another thing the governor didn't tell you about. he did not tell you about his new corporate tax proposals. but i will. it is on paper. here is what he proposes. he proposes a new tax -- i won't tell you -- he won't tell you

about his taxes -- [laughter] it's a new proposal called territorial taxation. that means where american corporations, if they invest abroad and building new plant and hire people in china or anywhere else in the world, whatever profits they make, they never have to pay any u.s. taxes on a profit. they just pay the taxes in that country. an expert look at that and said it will create jobs. 800,000 jobs in china, india, singapore. this guy is criticizing my president for not standing up to china? for not creating jobs here? how does he think those jobs come back here? do you know what i find most fascinating?

what i found most fascinating in the governor's acceptance speech -- he made a good speech -- he made a firm commitment, one of the few firm commitments i observed him make. it was firm. [laughter] remember this -- he said i make a commitment that i as president and going to go on a job store. with all this support for outsourcing, it's going to have to be a foreign trip. [applause] the first thing he does, he is going to have to go abroad. a job store? -- a jobs tour. the president and governor romney have very different ideas of where jobs are created. the president knows creating jobs here in america and bringing jobs back to america, that is the president of the

united states'job. [applause] -- the president of the united states' job. we talked about this yesterday. the thing we find most fascinating about the republican convention is how they discovered the middle class. [laughter] they discovered there is a middle-class. they talked about the middle- class and about middle-class values and they went on and on. it warmed my heart. then they talked about what they value. they talked about what they value. my dad used to have an expression -- he would say let me tell you what i would value. my dad with a don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and i will tell you what you value. [applause] don't tell me what you value,

show me your budget and i will tell you what you value. you say you value education, if you don't spend money on education, you don't value education. let's look at romney's budget and look at what it values. medicare -- massive cuts. medicaid, massive cuts, throwing 19 million people off their health care, including children and 1 million seniors. 70% of those seniors would be kicked off medicaid who are in nursing homes, they would be kicked out of the nursing homes. that is how they are able to be there. what are we going to do with all those folks? a lot of those folks are our moms and dads that come from middle-class families. even worse, some of them have no families and no where to go. what is going to happen to them? massive cuts in social security

for future generations. if you are in your 40's, their plan calls for you getting $2,700 less than you get now. if you are in your 20s, you are going to get $4,700 less in social security. massive cuts in education. early education, elementary and secondary education, eliminating the $2,500 tax credit for middle-class families struggling to keep their kids in college. pell grants cut by $1,000 a year for 9 million kids from working- class families who are qualified to be in college, who we have an interest in getting a degree to build america, cutting by $1,000 a year. god knows how many will have to drop out because it is down to nickels and dimes. is a close call for these kids to be able to stay in school. why are they doing all of this?

it is because they need to. they need to pay for the massive tax cuts they want to keep and the new ones they are proposing for the very wealthy. let me give you a couple of examples because i don't want to keep you standing. $500 billion of maintaining what they called the bush tax cuts -- there is all this talk about the bush tax cuts. $500 billion. maintaining that for the wealthy costs a trillion dollars for the next 10 years. $500 billion of that money goes to 120,000 american families. half a trillion dollars in tax cuts for 120,000 families. ladies and gentlemen, on top of that, this is where the phrase -- where president clion, it

caused him to say, this is the last administration on steroids. they have a brand new proposal, they have laid it out, they want to cut taxes for those 120,000 families by another $250,000 a year on top of the half a trillion dollars. this is real. i know it is not going to surprise you, but this has a very big price tag. when you give those kinds of massive tax cuts -- these are good, decent people. they did not ask for this. they are as patriotic as the rest of america and i bet if you survey them, they say they did not need it, but i have no proof of that. they are decent people. giving these massive tax cut to the very wealthy, what happens? you have to make up somewhere. guess who?

you. middle-class americans. there is a non-partisan organization that takes a look at all the plans and that does a survey of what does it really means economically. this outfit called the tax policy center examined romney's tax plan and years with the concluded. taxes on middle-class people children will go up $2,000 a year. $2,000 a year. ladies and gentlemen, just to give tax breaks to families who do not need it. nothing is going to change in their standard of living. in the neighborhood i come from in scranton, at $2,000 a year makes a difference. it is about whether you can pay your automobile insurance or whether you can keep your kids in school. is about which eat for dinner. [applause] $2,000 matters to average americans.

$250,000 doesn't matter any thing to somebody making $8 million. we have seen this movie before and we know how events. it ends in a catastrophe for the middle class and a great recession of 2008. the president and i have a different way for word. the way to create jobs is the old fashion way, from the middle out, not from the top down. [applause] let me tell you what our plan is. our plan focuses on first education, 100,000 new math and science teachers. to equip our generation to compete. 2 million workers learning new skills for a new economy through the community college group. 1 million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years. cut oil imports by 2020, investing in clean, renewable energy like wind and solar.

600,000 new jobs and better use of our natural resources. real and fair enforcement of our trade laws, creating a level playing field so we're able to export to the world what the world wants -- products stamped "made in america." [applause] they want those products. some of them will have tags stamped "made in ohio." [applause] cutting the deficit by $4 trillion, ending the war in afghanistan, just like we did in iraq and usinghat money to repair our roads and our bitches' -- our bridges and our schools. that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs here at home. it is quite simple.

unlike the republican party, and this is not your father's republican party. this is not even that romney's father's republican party. i have worked with too many great people over the years and they're not bad guys. as my brother would say, it's just a different breed of cat. unlike them, we see a future for everyone, where everyone, rich and poor does their part and has a part. we see the future -- and we are committed to our core, or our granddaughters and daughters have every single solitary opportunity are grandson's and sons have. [applause] where we are number one in the world again in college graduates, or social security is protected, medicare is guaranteed, where we promote the private sector and not a privileged sector.

[applause] we see a future where american elites not only by the power of her example, -- not only by the example of her power but the power of her example. we must guarantee a future where we keep the only sacred obligation we have as a nation. we have only one truly sacred obligation, that is to care for those to be sent to war and care for those to come home from the war. [applause] let me ask you, how many of you, like me, have a son or daughter who went to iraq or afghanistan? how many of you know somebody who has gone or know someone in the military? [applause] you all know. you all know that we owe these young women and men and incredible that and we know

these families an incredible debt. particularly an enormous debt that we can never repay to the families of those 6473 fallen heroes. 49,746 wounded. thousands. thousands critically wounded who are going to need our best medical care for the rest of their lives. [applause] those of you guys, those of you men and women who fought in vietnam, 70% of those wounded in iraq and afghanistan, had they been wounded in vietnam would have died. but because of the golden hour, because of breakthroughs in triage and medical care, they are alive. i have visited hospitals all over the world as my wife does.

they are going to need our support for the rest of their lives. they can make it, they are tough. but ladies and gentlemen, we can't ever forget this sacrifice. we always have to keep them in our care and in our prayers. there is a famous expression from an english poet who said "they also serve who only stand and wait." i used to watch jill every morning -- she is a teacher and she would get up and have her coffee over the sink. she is literally mouthing a prayer every single morning. those of you who have people deployed, you know, five, 10 times a day, it's just flashes through your mind. folks, we owe so much. this is going to go down, this 9/11 generation, as the second greatest generation in the history of this country.

[applause] you know this country. all of you have lived through a lot in the last four years. but the incredible thing is, you did not lose faith. you did what americans always do -- he fought back. you got up. and you know as well as i do, there is simply no quit in america. [applause] we are coming back. when i hear romney and ryan and republicans in congress talk about the culture of dependency, the decline in america, i don't recognize the country they are talking about. it's not where i live and it's not the people i know. but i know one thing, they're dead wrong. america is not in decline. america is coming back. we're not going back. we're going forward because of

you. i have news for governor romney and congressman ryan -- gentleman, it is never, never, never a good bet to bet against the american people. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, god bless you all and may god protect our troops. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ["keep the fire burning" by reo speedwagon playing]

>> republican vice-presidential candidate, paul ryan campaign last week for he talked about the proposals he and mitt romney would bring to the white house, including a new trade policy championing a small businesses, utilizing domestic energy resources and reducing government spending. this is about 40 minutes. ♪ ♪ >> how are you doing over there? hello, sparks. how about it, nevada? look at you all. it is so great to see you.

thank you for coming out. i love you, too, man. thank you for coming out and standing in line. want to thank you for something else. thank you for those electoral votes and thank you for making mitt romney the next president of the united states. [applause] we have a job to do, friends. and you know what? we have a lot of people who need jobs. we have got a big choice ahead of us. the question is, are we going to stick with four more years of the same? no. are we going to have a country in debt, in doubt, and in decline or are we going to do what we need to do to get people back to work to fix the mess in washington and get this country back on the right track?

[applause] we want to earn your support. we want to deserve victory. here is the problem -- president obama and too many politicians like him in washington, there are more worried about their next election than they are worried about the next generation. [applause] we need leadership. you have markair -- he's a great leader. reelect him -- you have mark here. we have of entrepreneurs here that built this country. john phillips, eight you are here. you built this business. government doesn't get the credit for that. the president gave a big speech

last night. [booing] just hear me out. president obama is not a bad guy. he is good at giving great speeches. he is just really bad at creating jobs. here is the problem. when you think the road to success and prosperity is more borrowing, more spending, more taxing, more regulating, a government-centered society with a government-run economy, these are the kinds of results we get. if we want the next four years to be any different from the last four years, we need a new president. [applause] four years ago, president obama record you don't have a

to run on, and you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. guess what? that is exactly what he is doing today. so let's take a look at where we are. we have some pretty disappointing news just today. we learned today that for every person who got a job, nearly four people stopped looking for jobs. they gave up. we cannot keep doing this. our economy needs to create 150,000 jobs every month just to keep up with the growth of our population. friends, this is not an economic recovery. this is no where close to an economic recovery. we need a new president and we need a real economic recovery. [applause]

the president gave us as big stimulus package right when he got elected. he said if we passed stimulus, unemployment will never get above 8%. we just learned today that it has been above 8% for 43 months. in nevada, it is 12%. look at the foreclosure rates. look at the unemployment rates. look at the fact that over the last four years, family household income has gone down $4,000. look at the fact that under the president's failed leadership, our credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in our nation's history. look at the fact that 23 million americans -- 23 million men and women are struggling to find work in america today. look at the fact that nearly one in six americans today are

living in poverty. that is the highest poverty rate we have had in a generation. it is not working. we have a plan to fix it. that is what the romney-ryan plan for a stronger middleclass is all about. finding the ideas that work that produced growth, that produce opportunity -- let me tell you the five basic things we're going to get to work right away when we win this race. number one, in this state and across the country, we have lots of energy and much of minerals. let's use that energy and create jobs. [applause] coal, gas, or electric car nobles, the keystone pipeline, we can lower the price for gas and lower the diesel costs and lower home heating prices. number two, there are a lot of americans in between work. i have a lot of bodies i grew up with that lost their jobs at the big factory we had in our home

town. they are in their '40's or 50's and they are in between. you need to have skills or education system so that people can get to school, get a new trade and get a path to prosperity so they can pull themselves up and reach the horizon there shooting for. that is critical. [applause] #3, we need to make more things in america. me to grow more things than sell them overseas and make sure countries, if they cheat, we have to hold them to account. [applause] dothis is something near and der to my heart i have been working on a long time. it is not that complicated. we have got to stop spending money we do not have. [applause] this idea of printing and borrowing is getting out of

control. it is a huge cloud over our economy. president obama give this cow $1 trillion budget as far as the eye could see. no balanced budgets. for $1 trillion budget spirit united states senate. have you guys heard this guy named harry reid in the senate? [boos] i take that as a yes. they have not bothered to pass a budget in three years. we have this law that says every year congress, by april 15 which is tax day for every american, it is budget day for congress. haven't done it for three years. this is not governing. this is kicking in the can. this is blaming other people. this is not responsibility. we have got to get this budget under control or else we will end up just like europe. economics, you get european results. the last thing, guess what.

most of our jobs, they come from businesses like this. they come from successful small businesses. we need to champion small businesses. you know what? when people are successful in businesses, that is a good thing. that is nothing to be ashamed of. that is a good thing. take a look at the peterbuilt trucks, parts, and equipment company. the 67 employees here. dmvs 64 across the street at the international dealership. -- they have 64 across the street at the international dealership. this business pays their taxes as individuals. here is what that means. president obama is promising -- he already passed the law, that come january, the tax rates on these kinds of successful businesses goes above a 40%. this tax increase he is talking about, it pays for 8% of its

proposed deficit spending. you know what? overseas, which where i come from in wisconsin means lake superior, countries like canada are lowering the tax on their businesses. the lord it to 15% and barack -- they lowered it to fit can% and sparked obama wanted to go above 40%. -- 15% and barack obama wanted to go above 40%. you do not create jobs that way. you cannot create prosperity that way. this requires leadership. our job is to give you a clear choice. our job is to show you how we're going to get out of this ditch. how we're going to grow this economy and get out of this rut. our job is to provide the leadership you deserve some you have a very clear choice of two futures. guess what? the moment and the men have met so well. that is why i am so proud to stand with a man like mitt romney. [applause]

this is a man who in everything in his life spells leadership. he is a decent man. a good man. an honest man. a man of faith. a man of integrity, achievements. you remember -- thank you. he likes you, too. do you remember the olympics in 1999? the waste, corruption, the bloated spending? that sounds kind of familiar today, doesn't it? they called mitt romney, he dropped everything he was doing, and he turned the olympics around and he made us proud. look what he did in business. you know what?

i think it is a good thing we have a man who knows what it takes to be successful in business in the white house. he created nearly tens of thousands of jobs. he started businesses. he turned around struggling businesses with an astounding degree of success. he knows firsthand that if you have a small business, you actually did build that small business. [applause] and if you want to see a good track record of comparison, look at what he did when he was just governor of massachusetts. when he was governor of massachusetts, he made sure that they actually cut spending. he worked with democrats who are 87% of the legislature he served with to balance the budget without raising taxes.

[applause] household incomes went up. unemployment went down. the credit rating increase when he was governor of massachusetts. that is basically the opposite of what we have in the last four years of barack obama. the president can give lots of speeches. he can say a lot of beautiful things. but he cannot tell you that we are better off. that is the difference. look. this race is not just about the borrowing and the printing and the spending and the regulating and all that has done to suppress economic growth, to deny opportunity, to get us where we are. this is not just about jobs or higher take-home pay. this is bigger than that. i think we all know this. this election is one of the most important elections we have had. it does not matter what generation you come from. this is the most important election in your generation. it really goes down to what kind of people do we want to be?

what kind of country do we want to have? you know, we have these principles. they are timeless principles. our founding principles. liberty. freedom. if free enterprise. self-determination. government by consent of the government which means the government works for us and not the other way of around. [applause] these principles matter. if we apply these principles, we fix the problem. if we rejected them, we become europe. here is the story. this is more than just economics. it is the identity of our country. that is what is so unique about america. america is not just nevada. it is not just wisconsin. america is an idea. it is the only country founded on an idea. that idea is very precious.

look. our founders and said it better than anybody else can. and sometimes even presidents need reminding of this fact. our rights come from nature and god and not some government. [applause] our founders created it and every generation sense, our veterans preserve it and we thank them for that. [applause] you know, the other day in a charlotte they tried to remove god from their entire platform. they got caught and put it back in. there were against god before there were for him. look. this is what we are committing to you.

we want to earn this election. we want to deserve a victory so that we have the mandates and the moral authority to fix this mess. here is what we are going to do. we are not going to deduct these tough issues. we are now going to kick the can down the road. we're going to lead. we will get spending under control. we will get the economy going and we are going to take responsibility. [applause] we are not going to spend four years bringing -- for years blaming other people. we're going to fix these problems. and we are not going to try to transform this country into something it was never intended to be. [applause] we will not replace our founding principles.

we will reapply our founding principles. [applause] you know this. you have a lot of power in your hands. nevada, as you know, and you are used to this. you are a battleground state. what does that mean? it means you have a very special responsibility. lots of people around the country are depending on you. you also have a great opportunity. because if we meet this moment for what it is, we can get ourselves back on the right track. we can make america great again. we can get back on the path to prosperity. we can get the growth we need, the opportunities we need, we can get the society where our kids inherit a debt-free nation and a promising future. this is up to you, nevada.

and here is what i simply want to say. we can do this. we can do this. it is not too late to turn things around. with your help, we will get this done. we will turn this thing a down. to get this done. we need your help. thank you very much, reno. thank you very much, nevada. we appreciate everybody. god bless you all. thank you for coming out. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> watch engage with c-span as the presidential candidates prepared to face off in 390- minute october debates. but wednesday, october 3,

domestic policy is the focus from the university of denver. tuesday, the 16th, the candidates will take questions from a town hall meeting. and monday the 22nd, questions will shift to policy. that is from in university. also, watch the final debate in danville, ky. -- and watch the vice- presidential debate in danville, ky. we will also have the key house and senate races. and who will control the congress? >> the house gavels in in about 45 minutes from now at 2:00 p.m. eastern. later this week, members will debate a measure setting federal spending for the next budget year, along with continuing of federal surveillance. later this week, they will debate a veterans jobs package. the house is live here on c- span dabbling in at 2:00 p.m.

eastern. at the senate is also battling in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. that is on c-span2. our question on the our facebook page is what you would -- what is your message to congress? under way is a defense policy at the brookings institution. -- a defense policy discussion at the brookings institution. that is on our companion network, c-span3. and then at 3:00 p.m. eastern, c-span returns to the discussion on terrorism at the brookings institution today. that is the 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. while we wait for the house to gavel in at 2:00 p.m., we will hear from a couple of capitol

hill reporters on what they think will lead up to the election in november. >> joining us to talk about the legislative agenda for progress, pete despair which from the hill and jason from roll-call. we see that the house will double in for only two weeks. what is expected? >> there will come back on wednesday and thursday of the following weeks, so really one and a half weeks. >> why such a short time? >> partly because of the conventions. the convention gradually move to part of labor day.

eight years ago, we have july conventions and i believe they feel that if they push it closer to election day they can get some advantage. we also have a congress, and particularly in the house, that believes in getting members back into their districts. the way they schedule the sometimes it feels like they are rarely hear. they're going to be gone for five weeks and then there will be -- they have been gone for five weeks and then they are here for a week and a half and then they will be gone again then there'll be the elections and then a lame duck session begins. >> what is at the top of the agenda? >> there are about two weeks left before the end of the fiscal year. they have agreed to a six-month extension of spending for the next year. that will avoid all of the talk about a possible shutdown, which will play into the election.

none of us will be writing shut down stories once they pass the bill. the two biggest issues will be the tax issues at the beginning of this year. do they go up or stay the same? and this living deadline in january, those issues will be dealt with in november and december. host: if you like to talk about this, here are the numbers. jason day, we are seeing some headlines about the farm bill and the "new york times" and it says, politics as usual and an angry face off with farmers. will we hear from them? guest: i have not seen any suggestion that there will be

tractors taken the mall. but at this point, i was in missouri last week and it is amazing how often the farm bill coming up with these members to have folks that they say they want to reach. there's a lot of anxiety about whether congress can find a way to get a farm bill done. they fight about over how much payment the farmers get or how much the food stamp program gets. but because -- but a frosted in the middle of a relative liberal drought, there will be no farm bill to take, until the election, that is a little bit disturbing to a lot of the people producing the bulk of the food supply in this country. host: what kind of things is senator mccaskill hearing from

her constituents? guest: it depends on where she was. she went to her alma mater at columbia university and she spent of time fielding biographical questions. switching venues, her message was that there are big differences between herself and her -- and her counterparts. there are big differences between them with issues like gynnae. that is where she was trying to hammer home -- like the student aid. that is what she was trying to hammer home. another issue is health care. there are a lot of issues about for veterans. and redistricting is also a huge topic. it depended on the audience, but what was interesting to me was that people were engaged in a

variety of topics. the funding bill for the next six months did not really come up as much, but i think that if people would have understood the details, i think congress really is hoping that they can just punch this and get it out of the way and not deal with it. to me, it is a colossal failure of dealing with the most basic function of government, which is to fund it. a six month extension of funding does not get you anywhere except par for the course. host: who sticking with the funding bill for a moment, there's more than just farming. and we are talking about other countries, other programs. guest: so much is the food stamp, or what they call snap. that ends up being a major part of it. so much of this shows how much the spending by has mattered now. almost every bill that passed now, it comes down to one issue.

some of it is a commodity price increases. some of it is just that they're not doing it anymore. every time we look at something that is dead in his tracks it is the number-one question that this hard-core group of a republican is asking. they ended up getting their way on a lot of issues. host: our first caller is robert on the republican line. he is in logan, utah. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is about the congress. the first two years of president obama's time in congress, he's had both the congress and the senate and he was able to pass a lot of legislation. however, most of that legislation, at least a lot of it, was not very popular.

the second congress -- the second house under his administration was filled with those who were opposed to the things he had passed. that is why we have this gridlock right now. i think it is very unfortunate that we would give this -- the president that kind of power. and then to see the results, because he made so many people unhappy with his obamacare and his cap and trade and other things that he forced through the congress without any republican backing or support. when you do that, you are going to alienate a large population of this country. i do not know if there will be an overhang from that in this

election. if those people are still angry over what he did, then he will not have support and the congress will again be divided. because of his forcing through unpopular programs. my message to congress would be to do what the constitution gave them the power to do. that is, to stop the legislation that is bad for the country and to try to come together -- from what i can see and i've been watching this for a long time. there is no give on the democratic side. the only way for anything to come together is for the republicans to capitulate and do what the democrats' demand. host: let's get a response. guest: he is right. there is so much anger and everybody is angry.

you do not see the republicans saying they can stand any tax increase. you do not receive the democrats and they can live with any program cuts. no one is happy at all. it is not the clinton administration where clinton wanted to do what they called hillary care and then some republicans came in and said the government is over. those days are gone. it is hard on the issues like the fiscal cliff that we are talking about, a possible tax increase and the sequestered, the cuts coming. it is hard to see on this issue right now. neither party seems to be willing to go down that road. host: how much our leaders in the congress pushing things out to the lame-duck session? guest: they have really decided that except for this spending bill, then nothing of substance

will get down there. if they even gave a short extension to the farm bill it would be a real feat. it would shock the two of us anyway. this has been the plan all along. if you see the house schedule, the house has been planning on going into recession after the election until the beginning of the year. they are planning for a leased for five weeks of a lame duck. there is pressure to avert a tax increase. people are aware of it and they're bracing for it. host: denver, colorado. the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. it is our one free voice along with wikipedia. how many people are 82 years all

like i am and have perfect long- term memory. we remember when this country was the best in the world. do not be fooled. grover norquist is and has been a lobbyist for the national rifle association. we have many powerful groups in this country. i have traveled extensively throughout the world. every other developed country has health care. and in 1996 -- please do not cut me off -- stephen wiggins from the united health care fund from the oxford health plan tochen $111 million in one year and then he resigned. the average ceo has a tenure of about two to four years. when they get people like the koch brothers -- $100 million donor club. we have the supreme court and

everybody has a right to have an ak-47. the well regulated militia it is our armed forces. host: you said you lived a long life so far and you remember the best time. what was that as time? caller: the best time was after world war ii. we had in many areas 100% unemployment. host: we will leave it there. here is an op-ed by charles koch. let's go to indiana. hi, aaron. good morning. caller: my issue covers democrats and republicans from congress down to local levels

of government. one issue that has not been brought up and has been split under all social issues including religious issues and education is issues of labor. by that i mean -- year people talking about illegal immigrants and talking to the country. you don't hear a page on the irs website about contractor fraud. people are getting paid under the table in our country.

they are american citizens. this is something that is not played up as a huge issue but it is can issue it is put up on the ira's tax website. host: any chance congress would be taken up these issues? guest: it is pretty unlikely. they have had some opportunities to address immigration and they did not. it remains to be seen whether there is an appetite for that in the coming years. host: pat from park city, illinois. caller: i had voted for republicans last year although i did vote for obama. kind of disappointed that republicans did not do what they said they were going to do. they made all kinds of promises.

it is very saddening to not see a lot of things pass. we have the farm bill and other things like that. i have a comment. please read "rolling stone" magazine. a kind of explains what romney is about. i was disappointed to hear what he was about, taking jobs overseas. i do support the unions and the farm bills, because people do need to eat. i'm hoping they can come together and not have too many

discriminations against the poor and the middle class because we are the people of the united states of america. thank you very much. guest: everyone is unhappy. a lot of republicans were not happy. they wrestled the government down to almost a spending freeze but not quite. people were about what happens to women and children. it is two different ways of looking at it. republicans want to cede the programs cut and the yoke in trouble for slowing the rate of growth. it is the reason for everything being slow, money.

host: what is the danger of congress not acting before the end of the year, jason dick? guest: if congress were to do nothing, head down to the bahamas and go fishing, then the tax rates would spring back to the levels that we were at during the clinton administration and the top tax rate would be a 39.6% and some of the other rates would go up. the payroll tax rate would go away. there would be more withheld for social security in our paychecks. the automatic domestic spending cuts would go into effect.

the deficit would be cut. this has become the big reason for people saying every bill coming down the pike is framed in a spending fight. almost every credible economists is saying this would put us back into recession. people would have less money to spend. never mind taking a vacation or replacing york 10-year-old car. detergento brand x and people would have less at the end of the year. the more conservative estimates are from 1% to 3 % cut in the gross domestic product.

host: let's take a listen to what candidate romney had to say. [video clip] >> the president was responsible for coming out with specific changes. it was supposed to have come out this past week. he has violated the law bank that he signed. my own plan to bring down their rates of taxation is by making sure we do not lower taxes on high-income people. will not have those people pay less. i do want to bring taxes down for middle income people. do not want them to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. host: this is paul ryan. he was on "face the nation."

[video clip] >>i did. i did vote for it. i was looking to find common ground. it was a big down payment and a step in the right direction. bob woodward just wrote this in his book. they did not want to face another debt ceiling. that's putting politics first. cutting wasteful washington spending to replace these defense cuts. host: that was paul ryan on cbs. bob woodward will be our guest next week.

what it means for members of congress on issues like sequestration. guest: they put together the super committee. we're ready to go and it was over. they slapped "super" on this committee and there was nothing super about it. this was the big grand scheme, to pick it up to his chosen group of people and it ended pretty quickly. suddenly we were looking at the cuts. no one seems to be happy with the defense cuts. there is a lot to mix together

to combine into a megadeal. guest: it is interesting to see the pressure begins to grow in this town. it is almost there's been a collective dream where we wakeup and it is the last day of class and we have not studied are gone to class but we have a final, and it seems like there is a little bit of this going on with congress. this was a law that was duly passed and signed by the president. there is some speculation that some people were rooting for failure of the super committee so they could have leverage. this is what they have to deal

with. i think they'll are in a little bit of denial. host: jason dick, house editor for "roll call." pete kasperowicz. let's hear from david honor democrats' line. caller: good morning. i heard the country should allow -- driving off the fiscal cliff. i see romney squirming at the word "sequestration." what it raise revenue? what about that idea? guest: there has been

speculation that if the fiscal cliff is driven off of, that this would release republicans from their pledge. now that the taxes have gone up, it is a matter of lowering them. we do not know how serious this is. it doesn't change the underlying problem, which is they have precious little legislative time to deal with these issues and they are not doing themselves any favors by furtively coming into town and passing some bills and leaving.

it would release them from any kind of pressure because they would only be of lowering taxes at that point. that is a gamble i don't think anybody would want to take and speaks to how much pressure that people are feeling. host: brad from arkansas, an independent. caller: i have two suggestions for advice on the budget, for the deficit. my first suggestion would be cut a lot of the military. as i see it, the war on terror is being conducted by basically covert operations. i do not think we need to schedule military to do that.

if we could leave out the standard military, that could save us a lot of money. i think we need to end the war on drugs, particularly marijuana. if it was legalized, not just for medical purposes, that would break the back of the mexican mafia. 60% of their profits comes from the sale of that drug. it would increase the revenue and services in the places that could grow them here in the united states. if we follow the same model that we did with alcohol, having tight controls with who grows it and who sells the, i think we would have success and save a lot of money. i know we have a big, big bureaucracy.

host: we will get their thoughts. an attraction for these thoughts he brings up? guest: a lot of people want to cut debt further. probably most democrats agree with the caller. this issue splits republicans. some tend to say, let's cut everything but defense. how does it end? on the drug issue, i'm not sure we spend as much on the war of drugs. ron paul made a good bid. we saw some bills that he introduce to legalize marijuana. i'm not sure how much that would save. those ideas are out there and i

do think they will be part of the mix. host: the veterans' jobs bill before the senate. guest: the senate will take you vote to take a vote by senator bill nelson to open up more avenues for employing veterans. this could proceed and we could have some action in a bipartisan vote in the house. we could see it snared up by some demands by how many amendments should be offered. this has tripped up a lot of legislation this year. republicans think they are being cut off by harry reid. a lot of legistion has ended in a dead road.

there were a few success stories in the senate over the summer. they left some amendments through and past the transportation bill and then they pass the farm bill, which is waiting for house action. no one wants to disappoint veterans in an election year. we might see a better chance for success on that. host: we have a tweet from maverick. let's get back to the phones and hear from david in houston. good morning. caller: i have an answer to part of the problem that we have with our federal government right now and that is in regard to congress.

i think it is time we have term limits. anytime you have a career member of the house or the senate, i think it is pastime. i see no where in the constitution where we were to grant careers of that length of time to a person that is supposed to be representing the people. that is too long. we have people from california to new york that have committed felonies that are serving in our congress and in our senate. we have people that get so ingrained into our bureaucracy as politicians that millions of dollars go into their spouse's

banking careers or chicken of the city, people and real estate, mr. charles rangel or mr. -- barney frank. we need to have term limits. the next time they come up for election after 20 years, they have to get out of office. the reason why they would be allowed to be in a federally elective office would be for the presidency or vice presidency of the united states. host: let's get a response from jason dick, house editor of "roll call." art they feeling like david, that the members who represent their house or senate race should be turned out because

they have been there too long? guest: i think there is frustration on the campaign trail. people are upset with congress but they'll like their own congressman. that is changing a little bit, particularly in the house. the ultimate turn limit is elect them and. -- the ultimate term limit is election day. there's nothing to prevent people from missouri to prevent claire mccaskill a second term. that is the ultimate check on power in term limits. incumbents to have an advantage in terms of name recognition. i did not think anybody anticipated the level of

turnover that we saw in the house. the voters ultimately to have that right. california at the state level has said term limits for members of the house delegates and the senate. most people would take a glance at california and the budget situation and say that that's -- there are several problems but term limits has not worked to make a more perfect union in california. host: "the washington post" takes a look and there is a map that shows the states that are in play. republican republicans need four seats to gain control, and six are tossups.

the postal service. it was a hot issue earlier this summer. all kinds of fiscal problems. guest: we have not seen the house to anything. what the republicans want in their bill, they want to see in large part with the post office is doing, reducing their size and giving people the incentive to leave if they have been there for a long time. the republicans get what they want by letting the postal service deal with the situation they have now. democrats are not happy with this. they're losing $25 million a day and $5 billion a quarter.

in large part the republicans get what they want without doing anything. i would be surprised to see the house rush back to do this anytime. it could come back in november and december in some way. host: is this playing out politically with house members? guest: there is a true emotional connection that people have to their post offices. i'm from a rural area of arizona. the postal service was the address on my father's driver's license.

people have a real connection to their post offices. they know their postal carrier. once the cuts start to hit, if they do, you'll see a lot more people engage in this and say, you're not supposed to close my post office. just ferret out the waste, fraud, and abuse. host: we have a tweet from j.thompson. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a world war ii, korean, vietnam war veteran.

this country has a moral obligation to take care of military. everybody should be able to serve this country, not be an excluded like the five romney boys. why haven't they served to defend this country? i'll hang up and let the and to be from these gentlemen. guest: it is interesting to see this increasing divide as we get further and further away from the time when we had a universal draft. we have come to rely on a smaller part of the population to fight our wars. this puts an enormous amount of pressure on the military. people have gone to iraq and afghanistan multiple numbers of

times. people know they are heading to places that are some of the most dangerous places on earth. even if people do not serve in the military, they feel the obligation. the vice president's son is a war veteran and he said this is the one true obligation that we have. the political parties are aware just how important the veterans are to the process and to the growth of the country. they will likely be hit in terms of budget cuts if it kicks in. that is another emotional thing. that is a connection that

people have to the military. if they'll are affected in some way, but could be political consequences that nobody could have considered before. host: michael in massachusetts. caller: do you think they are going to bicker? run the country like you run your household. do what is best for everybody. this bickering is nonsense. we send them to washington. we should be able to fire them

if they are not doing their job. i know people around the world are listening. you do what is best for everybody. host: is that affecting your vote? caller: i voted for obama and that think he is doing a great job. he is being blocked at every turn. we all know why. thank you for taking my call. host: gridlock. guest: it is everywhere. it is good advice. do not fight in front of the kids. they come out with posters and call each other names. there are some rules about how that needs to work. there is no jail for being a

little silly on the floor. the person warn you not to do it is coming up next and may do the same thing. on some level, this is a political platform sometimes. host: let's talk about what is going on in this seems away from the cameras. so many issues on the agenda. what is happening behind the scenes? a lame duck session and big fiscal issues. guest: they are waiting for the election to happen. then someone gets an advantage based on the result.

"oh, god, "two more years of this." everybody disagrees. the hearings are somewhat productive. they do talk when they are not on camera. that is where they got the highway bill done and the 2013 spending deal and public how to deal with the fiscal cliff. host: are their players that you are watching? guest: it depends on the chamber. i think it is fascinating. people focus on the democrats versus republicans. we have almost a coalition -- some of the far-right elements

of the republican party. for the biggest issues on the docket, you have a lot of democrats providing the margin for the house. so people like steny hoyer, republicans like mike simpson, people who have been around for a while and people who know how to get things done and get votes. guest: you will see it this week when you see the spending bill. some republicans did not like it. a lot of republicans will not be happy. you'll get some democrats to vote with it. host: bonnie, are you with us? let's move on to dot.

hi, dot. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i agree with the previous caller that called about politicians being in office. beon't think they should able to stay in longer. all this money going out for campaigning. we should put back into the economy. they go on vacation and pass something and do not pass it. they get paid whether we get paid for not. i don't know how i'm going to vote yet. i have not made up my mind. host: thank you for calling, dot.

let's get a response from jason dick. guest: there is this kind of stunning realization of how much money is in politics. this is not a cynical view. that money is being poured into local television and radio stations and paying the salaries of operatives in states and paying for gas that goes into cars to traverse it states. it is the money being spent in campaigns is being used in a way that benefits a lot of local economies. that's something people did not necessarily think of. a decent bulk of that money is going into a local television

station. you can see this segment again in its entirety at c-span.org. the u.s. house of about two gaveling. annual premiums of the fha mortgage insurance for increasing reserves. with this week, a budget discussion over the budget bubble and this month. and whether to extend the wiretaps. the senate is expected to dabble in as well. you can see live coverage of the senate debate on c-span2. now live coverage of the house here on c-span. ouse a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. september 10, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack 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. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. as the members of the people's house return to the capitol, call them as well with your gentling voice of collegiality. we find our differences difficult to bear, we move away from each other, so far as the spirit as descended upon this house, help each member to overcome unnecessary divisions that hamper productive work on

behalf of our nation. bring them to a deeper level of awareness of your spirit and make us one nation. give the members listening hearts, willing to give each other time and attention and ready to respond to your spirit living in each one. may all that is done within the people's house this day 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 stands approved. 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, i write to inform you that i have notified california governor jerry brown of my resignation from the house effective midnight tonight, august 15. it has been a tremendous honor to represent my friends and neighbors from california's central valley, both in congress and the california state assembly. i look back with pride on what we have accomplished. real honor of serving in congress is not working in the buildings but in laboring with so many unbelievably talented and dedicated individuals who serve our nation daily. signed, sincerely, dennis cardoza. the speaker pro tempore: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza, the whole number of the house stands at 430. before the house a

communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formal pursuant to the rules of the house of representatives of that i have been served for testimony issued by the philadelphia municipal court criminal division in connection with a criminal prosecution currently pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and precedents of the house. signed, sincerely, eileen sindowsky, district director. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the hop yorble the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena for testimony issued by the philadelphia municipal court, criminal division, in connection with a criminal prosecution currently pending

before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and precedents of the house. signed, sincerely, warren raines, constituent services representative. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

>> watch and engage with c-span. when state september 3, -- october 3, a debate at the university of denver. then october 16, a debate at hofstra university. vice-what's the presidential candidate debate

on thursday, october 11, and through the election we will cover key house and senate races, looking at the control of congress. follow coverage on c-span, c- span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> now comments by cia director michael hayden. he spoke at the university of michigan in ann arbor, michigan. this is an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. you may have noticed in the short biography that i am not a graduate of the air force academy. i would ask you to take it easy

on this kid that's because in a year or two they will be defending you. thank you for the opportunity to be which -- to be with you this afternoon. i want to be worthy of this honor and do and say something here this afternoon that adds to our national discussion and our debates about the world in which we find ourselves. given we are in the 11th anniversary of 9/11, i want to talk about law and policy and the war against al qaeda. in the military professiona we o bottom line up front. what i hope to do is despite all the long knives and sharp rhetoric, we have arrived at a

consensus on how we want to defend ourselves against this particular enemy. let me start it at the beginning. that the start by referring to a mentor of mine, brent scowcroft. i worked for him and president bush's national security council, and we have stayed in touch. he had an article that he wrote for the atlantic council in which he described the world in which will located now and compared it to the world in which he did most of his professional work. the way he described it was when he was in government, practically all the pieces on the board that he was concerned with were comprised of nation states, and the way he moved pieces around the world was what you and i would call hard power

as opposed to the current terms of soft power and smart power. nation states, hard power. what he went to point out was in this era of globalization, practically everything that has happened for the last two decades, the telecommunications or commerce or the internet, practically everything that has happened has tended to weaken the nation state. this is a post to the era in which he grew up, the era of industrialization, where practically everything culturally seemed to strengthen the nation. think back and i am looking at the audience. not all student age. think back when telecommunications were such that they were either run by the state or run by a state

government monopoly. remember those days? everything seemed to strengthen the state. in this current era, everything seems to erode the power of the state. and there are lots of expressions of this erosion of the power of the state and the pushing of power down both the state level to non-state actors, even in the direction of individuals. lots of expressions of that. terrorism is one, but not the only one. we could fillup this afternoon talking about cyber dangers, where someone in their mombasa basement or their dad's brush could cause great harm, the product of globalization pushing the power that. another day we could talk about transnational crime and what is happening in mexico and what that means for national security. certainly not a state actor.

clearly it has security impact, not just on mexico, but on ourselves as well. the third area in which this brought phenomenon of globalization, pushing power down, is terrorism. i can remember the day when a religious fanatic in a cave near the hindu kush would not -- was not an item of concern. they are today. because of this globalization, connectedness, connectivity and power down. even though everything that general scowcroft is right, moving in the direction of weakening the nation state, it is nonetheless the nation state that you and i turned to to defend us. we still get the nation state the monopoly on the legal use of

violence in our own defense. you see the tension i am trying to describe it you here. we have threats coming at us from new dimensions, new directions, and we have old forms, nation states, to defend us. that at the level of metaphysics is what happened to us on the morning of september 11, 2001. and the struggle of the nation state, hours, to deal with this new form of threat is frankly what it is i am here to talk about, and this has been a struggle. as i have suggested at the end of the day, we have brought the work it out, but there is still a lot of roughness on the edges how we want to defend ourselves against the very atypical threat. everyone in this room knows where they were on the morning

of september 11. it is burned into your psyche in the way for my parents did december 7 was burned into their psyches. on the east coast it was a gorgeous day. i do not think it got about 75 or so in the washington, d.c., area. it was an absolutely cloudless sky. i watch monday night football the night before, and they were opening a new stadium in denver. 9:00 or so, by executive assistants comes in and gives the first report that probably everyone in this room has heard, a plane has hit the world trade center. even though i am charged with one of the -- i am one of the

team charged with your defense, i thought was an accident, probably a sports plane. i went on with my meeting. 20 minutes later she comes back in and set another plane hit the other tower. immediately, you know this is not an accident. i know it is al qaeda. i will get to that any minute. i turned my executive assistant and said get the head of security up here right away. as the head of security got there, maybe nine minutes later, he came in the door in my office and he is coming in that door, the executive assistant is coming in through her door, saying there are reports of explosions on the mall. like most reports that turned out to be not accurate, but it is a reflection of a plane hitting the pentagon. other guy did not have a

chance to talk. he made an about face, made the announcement, and our non- essential personnel begin to leave. i do not know exactly how many left, how many state. we had about 50,000 people who come to work there every day. easily more than 5000 state as it is essential personnel. if you have seen those photos, if he cannot remember a cannot check out one of those will smith movies, and they had pictures of nsa, our headquarters buildings, and the reason is to be obvious to this group 11 years later, i said try to get everybody out of the high rises. we moved into a low-rise buildings, a three-story building, which was one of our

original build and stomach and i went down there and that is where the wires came together for global communication. in addition to be safer, it was the place i would want to be anyway. i went down there about 10 of 30 tenet callnd jordageorge ed me, and he said there is -- he said it is al qaeda. he was already hearing the self- congratulatory conversations, gunfire. it was the work about qaeda. in that building at fort meade, it got to be about dusk,, and one of my folks in up to be and your terrorism hube folks are off balance right now.

you probably need to talk to them. i said i should have thought of that. i went to our ctc shop, which was in one of the high rises, near the top, and they could not evacuate, because i do not know if you note this, but we do work at fort meade. it is not just the headquarters. we do a lot of our missions. these folks had head tips, if you know what i mean, and we cannot afford a break in coverage a break in continuity if we say we're on to move all your stuff and files and we will take you down. it was a possible. they were in high rise. it is just about dusk. i can see the sky darkening to the windows. most of these individuals were arabic-americans. and so you can imagine the

professional trauma, the personal trauma, the national trauma that all of them must have felt. i went through and there was no time to interrupt them. this is like hand on shoulder time, appreciate you being here. i made my way to the office, and without a sound, just trying to touch each one of the operators. while i was there, part of the nsa logistics force was in the room, and remember, it is dusk, they were packing up blackout curtains on the windows of this office building in glen burnie, maryland. i could not see it from that room, but if i had been 150 feet high gear, and the building did not go that high, but 10 or 15

stories for the upcoming i could see fort mchenry, which was one of the last areas of the united states to be bombarded by an invading enemy. i had that thought, as they were putting up the blackout curtains, things are going to be really different here tomorrow. we have entered into an entirely new era. we were going to go fight an enemy -- and this is a little bit of my history background -- an enemy that did not accept the treaty of westphalia, the one that parsed out the world and brent scowcroft's board. they thought nation states were in direct threat to god. also rejected geneva.

the primary tenant of the geneva convention is the distinction between combatant and noncombatant. this enemy did not make that distinction for those they killed, and interestingly, they did not make that distinction for even themselves. all their adherence were combatants, and she taught us, in the very narrow meaning of that world, in their eyes. harkening back to how it began, here is a security structure, built on geneva, westphalia, meeting an enemy that was constructed on neither of those promises. beyond that, we americans had figured out how to make ourselves but secure and free.

we had this formula that worked for more than two centuries of the life of the republic. we put all the ford stuff over here, and we put all the domestic stuff over here. we put all the intelligence- direct information over here, and we put all law enforcement stuff over here. and now here was an enemy living in the seem between foreign and domestic, between intelligence and law enforcement. for god's sake, one of the crews that hit one of the world trade center's state at a hotel about 4 miles from my headquarters prior to the attack. so you see that challenge. new kind of threat come all kind of institutions. how do you adapt the old

institutions to the new threat? today's after 9/11, i gave a talk to the nsa work force, actually a talk to an nt or -- room. camera. front of an tv everybody could see me globally at their workstation. i said some of the things you would expect. number one, job one is defense. attack characterization, is there a second way, what else is coming toward us? we will do offense soon enough, but we're playing defense now. a lot of folks had some difficulty with their family members coming to work one incident about a spouse throwing themselves across the front end of the vehicle, saying do not

go. i needed to say something about the people who were there. i said i want to thank you for being here. i know you have family members who are worried about you. look on the bright side. 300 million americans right now was they had your job perry ike and it the top up with this. i said all free peoples have to figure out where and that continuum between security over here and debris over here. we are blessed by oceans and circumstance. all free peoples have to figure we are americans. we have always to put our banner over here close to liberty. what happened two days ago is going to cause an awful lot people to think about picking that banner up and moving it

down the continuum in the direction of security. let me tell you what your job is. your job is to keep america free. you make americans feel safe again. i did a graduation address back in 2007. we wanted to keep this nation safe without changing our dna as a people. that was really hard work. that was really challenging. it was really, really contentious. politically. you have seen this play out in the national press. right side criticizing the current president for not doing this or that.

talking about how we have lost our way, lost our values. you have the current attorney general from 2008 talking about how there must be a reckoning because of the way the previous administration had acted in the face of this new and unprecedented threat. let me give my hypothesis. despite the frequent drama at the political level, america and americans have a found a comfortable center line in what they want their government to do and what did is they accept their government doing. it is that practical consensus that has fostered such powerful continuity between two vastly different presidents, george w. bush and barack obama, when it

comes to this conflict. let me start with the most fundamental continuity between the 43rd and the 44 presidents of the united states. both have said we are at war. both have said we are at war with al qaeda and its affiliates. i was watching president obama's inauguration, and looking for signals with regards to this very fundamental thing. he actually said, "we are a nation at war," which was somewhat satisfying for someone from my background. no one would argue we were at war in iraq or afghanistan. i wanted evidence he believed we

were at war with the groups that had attacked us on 9/11. in august 2009, my wife and i were in phoenix, ariz., for a vfw convention. president obama was the speaker. the president explicitly said, "we are at war with al qaeda andforeign and domestic, law enforcement intelligence. the president was going to use all the authority he had in his backpack like his predecessor. law enforcement authorities when they were useful, but he would not limit himself just to law enforcement authority. authority as commander in chief. after a few weeks in office, president obama was awarded the nobel peace prize. some have said he wanted because he was not president bush and the europeans wanted to

confirm that fact. do you recall his acceptance speech in scandinavia? do you recall at the scene at? i watched him carefully. he was here at the protium -- podium and teh camera is here. you can see teh back o -- the back of the president, the nobel committee, and all the dignitaries. difficulty with their family members coming to work. one incident about a spouse throwing themselves over the front of a vehicle saying, "don't go." when needed to say somethingi simply said, "i want to thank

you for being here. i know you probably have family members worried about you. look on the bright side -- 300 million americans right now wish to use force to protect america and americans. i was invited to the german embassy in spring of 2007. i have been director of the cia for about one year. the germans were in the chair of the european union. as a matter of courtesy, the german ambassador to the united states would, about every two weeks, have the other ambassadors from the other state of the european union over for lunch. germany is in the chair, the ambassadors from the americas to the eu states would come over for lunch.

then he would have an american come in and beat the lunchtime entertainment. they would give a lunchtime talk. i expect secretary of state, secretary of defense. they invited me, the director of the cia. i have representative from every country in the european union there. what would make an interesting speech? let's talk about renditions, detentions, and interrogations'. [laughter] so i did. i began the conversation -- i had a great staff at the cia. you are blessed with the talent and morality of people in your service. i had a wonderful staff to make great speeches. it was where i would let anyone go without the most irresistible temptation to fool with prose.

this was so important that i wrote an awful lot of it. about page two or page 3 in that speech i said -- look. let me tell you what i believe, what my government believes, and what i believe my nation believes. then i gave them these. number one, we are a nation at war. number two, we are at war with al qaeda and its affiliates. number three, this war is global in scope. number four, i can only fulfil my responsibilities by taking this fight to that enemy wherever he may be. no. 5, al qaeda is global. there was not another representative in that room who agreed with those four

sentences. notnot saying they did believe it for themselves -- they did not. they did not think it was legitimate for us to believe it. and yet, you have had two presidents, the congress, and the court system in essence sign off on all four of those sentences. a fellow, he died september 2009 killed by navy seals in somalia. he was the chief of operations for the al qaeda affiliate in the horn of africa. the navy seals approaches convoy in helicopters. according to press accounts, they made no attempt to capture. it destroyed the two vehicles,

landed long enough to swab enough of him for dna to prove they got the right guy, and flew back to their carrier. i'm willing to hazard to you that there is not an intelligence service in western europe who would've given you the intelligence to do what we just did. because of this fundamental disagreement that we believe that we're totally legitimate in conducting a targeted the killing outside of internationally recognized theaters of combat. let's fast-forward. let's go to may, the death of bin laden. you all know the story, right? we followed the courier network. we built it up.

they led us in. leon panetta is building up the case, trying to give the president confidence without getting too close. the president has to make a decision and we decide to go. they snap off, go in, kill a courier. kill one of bin laden's sons. they see bin laden. depending on what version you are following now, the white house version or the new book by this seal, they shoot bin laden and radio geronimo ekia. geronimo, bin laden, killed in action.

it was exciting for those who have been following him for a decade. just forget me. let me read run that. let me describe this for you in a slightly different way. the heavily armed agent of the united states government facing an unarmed man offering no visible resistance shot and killed him. an unarmed man wanted in the american judicial system for crimes against the united states. if you do not believe we are at war, you have to read it according to this. only if you believe we are way,

do -- war, do you believe what the seasl did was a legitimate action. there is an underpinning here. we are at war. targeted killings have continued. if you look at the statistics, they have increased under president obama. renditions, that is the extra- judicial movement of suspected terrorists from a to b. our policy under president obama is the same as it was under president bush, the same as it was under clinton. powerful continuity. guantanamo. i know president obama said after taking office he would close a guantanamo and he did not.

why didn't he? because of a bipartisan political consensus in congress supported broadly by public opinion that he shouldn't. back to continuity because we americans have agreed on a course of action. indefinite detention. eric holder wanted to try khalid sheik mohammed, the architect. is being tried by a military commission in guantanamo. when attorney general eric holder was asked, what if he is acquitted in the article 3 accord in new york?" the attorney general said we would hold him anyway as an enemy combatant, indefinite detention. the same as his predecessor. there is powerful continuity here.

state secrets. the bush administration was criticized for invoking the state secret argument when many of the things i just described to you have been contested in the american court system. the bush administration said we cannot argue about that in court because it will reveal things that are still contested in america. -- protecting americans. despite a campaign that was based upon a very powerful promise of transparency, president obama has used the state secrets arguments in a variety of courses as much as president bush. i'm grateful for president obama using the state secrets argument to stop some of these, but i am personally named in some of these courts. [laughter] the one in which i am most personally named is what bush called the terrorist

surveillance program which "the new york times" called the domestic service program, intercepting messages entering or leaving the united states that we believed were affiliated with al qaeda. there is a big expos in "the new york times" in 2005 that won a pulitzer prize for one of the authors. let's talk a little bit about that. this terrorist surveillance program. i think it actually enlivens something i'm trying to describe to you. remember i said, for an and domestic, law enforcement, intelligence, with an enemy here at the scene? the 9/11 commission recognize that. the 9/11 commission criticized my agency, the nsa, for being a little too timid when it came to trying to intercept

terrorist communications, particularly terrorist communications that may involve u.s. persons. in other words, communications here in the united states. remember i said i was down in the operations building and we begin playing defense before go on offense? as the director of nsa, you have a fair amount of authority. you can dial things up, get more aggressive. you cannot be haphazard about it. you have to sell it to congress. guess what i did about 11:00 morning of 9/11? if i had the authority to ratchet it up, i did. i call the head of the american intelligence and the heads of the house and senate intelligence committees.

i told george. we were getting a bit more aggressive and the higher probability that we could intercept those types of messages that would tell us about the next attack. i did not hear from george for two or three days. and he says i visited with the president and vice-president dan i told them when you were doing. i said he was going to go to jail and i would bail him out. i was being aggressive but i was doing it within my authority. he was then asked if he could do anything more. so george calls me. the president and vice president said it was great but if i could do anything more.

i said, and george, not within my current authority. george said, what to do if you have more authority? i'll get back to you. i huddled up with my people and we decided there were some things we could do. i would need more authorization. it was not inherent. we took it down to the president and president, using his article two authority as commander in chief as a nation at war against an opposed, armed enemy force and the congress has already passed it would is as close to a declaration of war in modern america. and the president has said it will lay the things out, i think they're good. go do them and i authorize them to do it as commander in chief and the attorney general signed off.

i have the authority. i went back to fort meade and i took this question to my lawyers. remember the framework. a new kind of threat, an old kind of structure. how do you adopt for the new reality? i went to my three top lawyers individually and they said we believe the government has the authority to authorize you to intercept. i cannot go into details, but fundamentally, a higher probability that you will intercept the communication, one end of which may be in the united states, relating to al qaeda. "the new york times" blue that story in december 2005.

for those of you who follow it, you remember the visit to the attorney-general ashcroft's hospital room march 2004. if that intrigues you, write it on one of the cards and ask a question. this was incredibly contentious. was it legal? you bet. the people in the appellate court ruled on this twice and i will give you one of the appellate readings. the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without a warrant for foreign intelligence services. politically, this is a nuclear detonation. ok. sorry. that is a long buildup.

we will fast-forward the tape. we are now in 2008. congress in 2008 is about to amend the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the law that governs everything am describing to you here. there are sharp debates. senator obama opposes the law. the president changes his mind and votes for the amendment to the act. the act not only legitimate did everything the prelate of bush had told -- everything that president bush had told me to do but it gave the national security agency a great deal more authority to do these kinds of things. that is a long and involved segue here to come back to the point that, as contentious as

that was, as bitter as the fighting was in 2005 when the story broke, and legislation passed three years later that not only legitimate set but expands it. why? because, frankly, i think we have got powerful, broad agreement that we have to do some things differently. now, i have made the point of the continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president. obviously there were some differences. the most fundamental difference has to do with detainee's. -- detainees. president obama became president and the promise to close guantanamo, something he was not able to do, but he closed down the cia black sites where we

held al qaeda senior leadership for interrogation under special rules that we were authorized by president bush. that is a long and contentious argument. honest men different to the wisdom of that policy. i was comfortable with because for two or three years we maintain the black sites even though we had few people in them. i thought it was a necessary tool in the fight against al qaeda. president obama on january 22nd directed that we close the black sites and also directed that all interrogations' would be done in accordance with the army field manual, not in accordance with some of the techniques that cia had approved. if you go to cia.gov . to our public affairs site, messages to the work force from january 22nd, 2009, i am still

director, and you can see my note to the work force reflecting president obama as executive order. what i said to the work force was, "president obama has given us exactly what we need. president obama has given us clear lines within which he wants us to operate. these are different than the lines we had before, but our only requirement is that the lines are clear. we will be as aggressive and as successful in the new box as we were inside the old box." as director, out of a sense of loyalty to the elected commander in chief, but intellectually, personally, i was supportive. what we need from the president is clear guidance.

it's true. it remains true. i meant what i just said. i never expected that we would actually get out, as a nation, of the detention business. i defy you to think of anyone we have captured and held outside of iraq or afghanistan since january 2009. we have given up detaining people. for those be following a long, there was one caught between yemen and somalia who was kept on a u.s. navy ship for six weeks. other than him, i know of no example. much of our intelligence comes from detainee's. -- detainees. this is the one at this continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president. we have made it so politically

dangerous and so legally difficult that we don't capture anyone anymore. we take another option. we kill them. now, i do not morally opposed that. this is an opposing armed enemy force. i only put two pitched -- additional people in guantanamo in 2007-2008. tore losing the opportunity interrogate and learn about our enemy. i really do think we've -- plural, not as the president or cia, this is the one area where we really have not worked out the consensus. this is the one area where we really have not yet worked out a consensus. so, we will not really capture, detained, or hold anyone and we are not convinced that we can put into an article 3 court at

the end of the convention -- detention. which is a far cry from what the geneva convention, loss of armed conflict, and logic of being a nation at war suggests we should do. so, if i am looking forward, right? truth here, i am an advisor to the romney campaign. not an advocate. if we are looking forward, i expect there to be some continuity between a president romney and his predecessor as well, if that were to come to pass. it will carry over from 4445. -- from 43 to 44, will carry over from 44 to 45.

the only additional difference might be that we actually look for ways to capture and detain people without needing to be c.s. in miami at the crime scene in order to create the predicate for a criminal case in an article 3 court. i can actually envisioned someone -- please, do not read in that this is the governor's intent, but i could see someone saying that we could put more people in guantanamo because we are a nation at war and we do have the right to detain enemy combatants. as i told you up front, amazing continuity. we have to find a centerline. by and large, we are kind of ok. the targeted killing program? the one that our european allies dislike? 72% of you think that is a good idea. hard to get 72% of americans to agree on anything. one final point before we open up to questions and answers.

you just had a 39 year military officer talk to you for 40 minutes without a power point slide. [applause] but if i had that slide, here is where i would need it. since i do not have it, i am going to do hand puppets, all right? if this is what we are doing now, everything i have described to you, most of the things that we used to worry about are up here. 9/11? up here. i am saying that we are stopping this kind of stuff. airline fought over the pacific? east africa embassies? up here.

2006 airline plot out of the united kingdom. the reason you cannot take your after shave through the checkpoint? what al qaeda really wants is that last attack against the iconic target. because of 11 years of this -- i never say never, as we are pessimistic intelligence officers -- so, what are we seeing now? we are seeing some stuff down here. we are looking down the road to christmas day, 2009. we are seeing a terrorist driving from denver to new york to put explosives in the new york subway station. we are seeing a drive-by shooting in little rock, arkansas. do you see what i am trying to describe it?

-- secretary napolitano, which she has said publicly is the future allocate attacks against america will be less well- organized, less complex, less likely to succeed because of this. they are just going to be more likely. if you look at these kinds of attacks out here, i know you were watching american football game, but looking at what the rest of the world calls football, this is penalty kicks. no matter how good the goalie, sooner or later the ball goes in the back of the net. now, the question i have for

you, talking about continuity and structure, making adjustments, what did i just tell you? not likely to happen? probably will? what do you want me to do with my left arm? because i can move it. i can push it down. i can push to make it less likely. the question i have for you is -- would it be private? what about your convenience? what do you want to give up? i am not a free agent here. i am your servant. you have got to give me some guidance. more candid, how much more did you want to take off?

what we need as a nation going forward is the continuation of the very tough, sometimes overly bitter conversation we have had to get us here. do you want us to get more likely to do this? or are you willing to live with that? and if you are willing to live with that, and if you are asking my personal view, i kind of them, do we have a metaphor for shaking hands? because if we say no, this is as far as we want you to go to guarantee security, you get the point. if i say -- i can do more, let me know, you said we are cool, the patriot act is far enough, then you have to have the understanding that when bad things happen, bad things happen. no one did anything wrong in

terms of the people defending you. nothing is broken. it is just the natural consequence of balancing the liberty of a free society with security. we have worked a lot of it out. we still have some homework assignments. that is why i came, to kind of share that with you. only an informed citizenry can form the government where it is that you want your policy. the first question from the

audience -- there have been reports that al qaeda units have been operating alongside the free syrian army. given that the u.s. was discreetly supporting them, how do we avoid supporting al qaeda? >> vitter everyone here that question? how're you doing? >> there have been reports that al qaeda units have been operating alongside the free syrian army. given that the u.s. has been discreetly supporting the free syrian army, how do we avoid>> ok, syria, al qaeda, growing in strength. the best opposition is al qaeda. what do you do? this kind of question makes me delighted that i am out of government. this really is a problem from

hell. just one moment of background, what you have there now is an playing on videos that you and i are watching every night. the popular image of that is the oppressed against the oppressor. that is true. but there is another story line, and this is where intelligenceit is not just oppressor and oppressed. this is sunni allowhite. and a bunch of other groups as well. they are not yet part of the opposition. kind of trending towards the regime, because it is the devil until those other groups vote, as true as it is, that is not the defining narrative.

this is an absolute magnet drawing allocated into this fight. the longer this goes, in my view, the more the al qaeda character grows, which is a very dark picture, which suggests to you that we should act more quickly before this becomes outdated-flavored as a movement. i have already told you that it is sectarian you want to get involved in another sectarian conflict? it is quite a dilemma, but the scenario as you laid it out is correct. these guys are prepared to die, to kill. if you fight someone who you think is your oppressor and you are ready to die, ready to kill, they will end it.

you are not going to get to ask too many questions. the longer this goes on, the more that is the reality. >> hello, i am also from the ford school. thank you for being here. as the universe -- u.s. fights groups that do not honor the geneva convention, our responses include attacking targets that have non-combatants. are we not irreparably damaging the geneva convention? >> it is impossible for me to comment on specific operations, so let me cut to my answer about technology, all right? without doing specifics on specific operations. as an air man, the drone -- we do think that there is a pilot, he is just remote.

it gives you an unblinking stare at the target. this is not a fast-moving f-16 at 400 knots. that has to make a decision in a matter of a few seconds. hours can be there for hours, if not days, giving you a god's eye view of the circumstances. are you sure that is who you believe it is? are there any non-military age males or females there? when was the last time you saw them there? if we were to attack this, what weapon would you recommend? what about the weapon in from the northeast as opposed to the southwest? do you believe the probability of death or injury, coming from this way to the way? it gives you the opportunity to be almost explicit in your precision.

in one sense we are rejecting the premise of the question, that the use of these is a collateral damage engine. quite the opposite, it gives you the opportunity to go to an incredibly high standard to avoid collateral damage. >> given that the war on the al qaeda has focused in recent times in pakistan and the different -- diplomatic difficulties there, what is the future of the strategic partnership? most are concluding that the defensive is now irreconcilable >> this is something that we work on a lot. the current staff was my counterpart.

a wonderful man and a wonderful officer. as you might a imagine, i went to islam a bad -- is, bob -- islamabad more than once. i would go to their for a variety of reasons. there were kind of airline shares, even though it was transport aircraft. i would have all 17 hours to read the books and master whenever topic we were about to go talk to him or his successor about. hold that thought. what constitutes pakistan? what is the fundamental blue? we are together because of an

idea, frankly. clearly, it is not blood. it is belief in a political principle. you get to be one of us by signing on. you could be an individual turkish descent. you could be a german from the middle of the 19th century. it is not india. i do not mean to make light of this and i am oversimplifying, but there is if point to be made here. mastering the case, no matter what is in those books or what it is i am kinda convince them of, it is two things.

number one, quit obsessing about the indians. number two, let's talk about making war on this slice. that is a heart conversation, do you not think? this is really basic, almost primal. it gets them away from the constructive relationship. i am not blaming anyone is just the nature of reality at this moment.

>> what effect does sequestration have on defense capabilities? >> secretary panetta would say catastrophic. i agree. this is another half of $1 trillion. fundamentally in an orderly way, it can probably even more cuts. but it cannot digest them away secant -- sequestration says to digest them, which is taking every account and take 11% of it. imagine year-old household account. you cannot juggle the money, you have to take 11% out of everything you have. know what happens if you are 11 cents short on your mortgage? that is what sequestration does the department of defense. ok?

>> if we are at war with al qaeda and its associates, how will we know when we have one? what will it signify? >> i had notes here, you saw me go back occasionally to make sure i was not wandering too far. this is the last page. how do i know i am done. [laughter] that is a really good question. i have used to much of your time. i am happy someone brought that up. the real answer is i do not know. that is a really good question and it is a question you should continue to ask folks like me. how do i know that we are safe

enough that it is time to shift out of that? this is based upon an intelligence judgment. and this is americans talking to americans, ok? do you know the degree of political courage to scale back of this thing? frankly, you make yourself politically vulnerable. if we ever get to that point, it will really have to be based upon a national bipartisan consensus. it cannot be -- if i start -- stop doing this, i have been exposed eggplant.

back to the point i was trying to suggest, this test with a product of a very sincere dialogue. i want you to raise your left on this time. we understand, we are all in agreement. that is fundamentally what the question is. we are not at that point, in my judgment. that point will come sunday and we will have to have the courage to adjust them. >> what about the diplomatic level dealing with al qaeda? is there anyone to deal with? >> what are other departments going to do to deal with al qaeda and are there other ways to deal with them. i will take that question and run it about 20 degrees, right here, and answer the question that i wish it was.

you had me talking about targeted killings, renditions, guantanamo, saying -- hey, that is the for-. -- hey, that is not going to happen. in dealing with today's threat, dealing with human being the fourth to be your fault -- do you harm, your government is really good. it really is. we have kept the republics so say -- this is the fourth five -- they often do not come at us, they come at other people now. that is an unintended byproduct that is a reality. by an american military terms, this is a close. the guy who is already convinced he will kill you. the to fight is about the production rate of people trying to kill you in six, 12,

18, or 24 months. as successful as we have been, we did this in the cold war, remember, the best army in germany. while we held the soviets, we had this week ideological concept. whenever it is the to think of communism -- i think it is a bad. history, let alone government, you cannot argue that communism is a western philosophy. it was written by a german in a library in london. we were scrubbing it up ideologically.

fast-forward to this heat war. these guys are convinced they want to kill us? we are stopping them. the production rate back here is fundamentally about one of the group -- the world's great islam. and what it really means. we do not have a lot of authenticity there. i know, i know, we are a multi- cultural society. fundamentally. it is very hard to get seriously involved in telling the general body of believers this. try to make it worse as soon as we getting gauged in that fight. we are not doing much.

18 months ago, you had this wave of protest and revolution. syria, yemen. the heartland of al qaeda. al qaeda was absolutely irrelevant to it. they were relevant to the movement. this was about responsible government. with a minute, we know something about this stuff. as destructive as the arab spring has been, coughing up

some serious diplomatic corps counter-terrorism challenges, over the longer term it has created a new dialogue. in dialogue over which we have genuine legitimacy. for the first time, weakening gauge i of the steeper ideological conflict in a way that we never have before. at the end of the day, that means other elements of the american government needing to get into this diplomatically, politically, economically. it is not ours to control or shape, but we can fashion a

positive movement about which we have not had an opportunity for the first nine years of this war. >> general, this is the last question. how does the new phenomenon of homegrown terrorism fit into the category? >> that is a great question. a lot of these for homegrown. u.s. citizens, not even green cards. the first thing i would point out to you is that this problem is not the zero. all right? this self-radicalized issue is not zero. but the numbers much lower than the west. we do not have the same problem that the british have. why? the cia is better? no.

it is because of who we are. we are an immigrant people. the average income in the united states is above the national average. there is no reason to despair about this, but there will be issues. this is the we are at war or is it a law-enforcement problem issue. my personal view, it would be incredibly rare case where this triggers the we are at war approach. i cannot imagine all future circumstances. this is a job for the fbi, not the cia. by the way, by and large, most of the information that we knew, we knew it about the guy coming in to try, and it was derived from foreign.

our base of knowledge of him was foreign intelligence. to me the right entry point was enemy combatant, n.h. -- agent of war, deal with it that way. the roots of the information are that we should treat this as a law enforcement problem. in broad measure, my sense is that that is how we should do with it.

thank you all for coming here this afternoon. i hope you have left with more questions than it had and you came in. that was my intent. they you for giving me the opportunity. [applause] [captioning performed by [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the u.s. house meets in just under 40 minutes to debate 11 built, including a measure to set a minimal premiums for mortgage insurance. later in the week come in temporary funding for the federal parliament for the next budget year. continuing the fiber wall. live coverage at 4:00 eastern.

c-span 3 will be live at 3:00 eastern for a discussion on national security and terrorism. a couple of the major issues facing the next president. see that on c-span 3 at 3:30 eastern. also, coming up tonight on the communicators, a look at a key technology in telecom issues this fall. three journalists will join the conversation. see that tonight on c-span to. the u.s. national debt hit 16 trillion dollars last week. this morning we talk with the head of the concourse coalition about the fiscal cliff and whether either of the presidential candidates can do anything about it. host: robert fix be head of the coalition center. 16 trillion dollars for the

national debt. why is that so important? >> what is really important is how big the debt is relative to the economy and how fast it is growing. those things are alarming. the debt is about 100 percent if you include the whole 16 trillion you talk about. it is projected to keep growing faster than the economy, which results in an unsustainable situation after a while. bill bell lot of economists distinguish between that part of it we have to go out and borrow on the markets, close to 12 billion, and the rest of it is government trust funds, which is essentially money the government promises to pay itself in the future, and they have different economic effects. it is all part of the national debt. host: the difference between the debt and the deficits. guest: the annual deficit adds up to the national debt. right now we're adding about $1

trillion a year, just because spending exceeds revenues. we have to go out and borrow the difference. we have to look at fiscal policy and how we are going to close that gap between revenue and spending. host: this story by the associated press. host: it explains a little bit about the financial situation.

talk to us about the idea of how much we are borrowing for every dollar that we spend. guest: the statistic is accurate. we are spending way above what we are taking in. living above our means, so to speak, and borrowing on the rest. you try to live off your credit cards, that is what we're doing. host: you can join the conversation. here are the numbers to call. democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. independent callers, 202-628- 0205. who owns are debts? guest: it is all real money. about $12 trillion it is money

we got and borrow from the markets. of that, close to half, in the high 40's, is money we borrow from other countries. china and japan are the leading countries that lend us money. the other is domestic borrowing. people that buy treasury bonds and companies, investors, pension funds. this is a broad mix. there is about $4 trillion, almost $5 trillion of money that is part of the debt is owned by the social security trust fund and medicare trust fund. that is not money we have to borrow on the private markets

but it does represent money the government will have to pay for future benefits. host: let's get from the phones. tina from indiana on our independent line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. all we hear about is how we need to cut this and cut that. there is no discussion about increasing revenue. this has been painted by the politicians in the media. all these --all we have seen is, "more trade, more trade." looking at katrina and how well they all are doing. we need to go back to imports. i know what i'm going to get

when i say that. "we have tried that during the depression and it did not work." now we import about 80%. we have lost our manufacturing base to a large extent. we need jobs that pay a living wage. guest: your overall point was revenues need to be on the table and i think that they do. revenues as a percentage of the economy are low. part of that is because the slow economy and because of the tax cuts that were enacted over the past decade and extended over the slow growth with had recently. the payroll tax cuts. look at revenues as a share of

the economy, around 16% and it has been around 15% in the last couple of years. it is usually around 18.5%. i think there is room for looking at new revenues. i suspect you would not get a whole lot of new revenues in the tariff scheme you proposed and it would perhaps be a restriction on trade that might not be good for the economy. i guess i'm not enthusiastic about the remedy that you propose but i do agree with you that revenue should be part of the mix. host: we have a graph that

looks at the projected debt from the concord coalition's website. you can see the omb historical debt levels and then the gao projection. what concerns you most in what we're looking at here? guest: the sudden sharp rise at the end. that is what it is illustrating, the growth of the debt. we used to have big spikes in debt for things like war and recession. the basic problem is we have a fundamental structural deficit between the spending promises and the revenues that we're bringing in. the most alarming thing is that even if we assume a strong economic recovery and a complete withdrawal from overseas operations, that line was still look pretty much the

way it does because of the underlying mismatch between spending and revenues. host: good morning from florida. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i keep hearing the top 5% are paying 40% of the taxes. what percentage would they have to increase to shrink this debt that leads to the deficit? it is strange when you hear they are paying 40% now. could you get much more out of

them to shrink this debt? i know there's a large proportion that is not paying any taxes. i'm in that group. it just seems that we are not going to be able to get it to shrink this debt on the shoulders of such a few people. guest: i think that too often we hear that all we need to do is raise taxes on the rich. taxes have been cut and the rich have benefited. you can think about going back to the tax rates from before the 2001 rate cuts. we had those rates in the 1990's and the economy did fine.

more revenue increase on a progressive basis would be fine. you cannot do it all by saying, if we tax the rich -- the tax rates of 80% or 90% to make a serious dent, only by taxing the rich. that is not the entire solution. we have to look on the spending side. that might be something that everybody has to chip in. host: has the economy taken a front and center role in the campaign? guest: the question is whether

it has done so in a meaningful way or whether we're having a cartoonish debate. i think that the economy should get a thorough airing, and maybe it will during the debates. i hope the debates focus on the economy and the deficit and what we do about it because there are different views between the president and governor romney. when the heavy convention speeches, you hear a lot of the good stuff. "we're going to protect medicare and cut taxes and protect social security, nobody has to suffer a hit, except maybe some evil people. and we're going to close loopholes." these are not realistic solutions.

i hope the debate helps to shed some light on that. host: listen to president obama speaking last thursday night. [video clip] >> i will put more people back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runaways. after two wars, it is time to do the nation-building right here at home. [cheers] you can choose if future where we reduce our deficit without sticking in to the middle class. my plan would cut our deficit by $4 trillion, say independent

analysts. those of us who believe government can be a force for good should work harder than anyone to reform it so it is more responsive to the american people. host: president obama on thursday night. what was your response? guest: he talked about money that we are not going to spend on the wars for investments. that is not a savings in any sense. it is kind of a budget gimmick. budget projections assume we will continue the war spending at the same level for the next 10 years. the president saying, "we're

drawing down so we can spend the money on something else." it is not really a savings you were not going to spend that money in the first place. "let's spend about 120 on highways and use the rest for deficit-reduction." we're spending $120 billion that would not have been spending otherwise. you are not achieving deficit reduction. host: let's listen to mitt romney down in tampa. [video clip] >> this is when our nation was supposed to be paying down the national debt.

this was the hope and change america voted for. it is not just what we wanted or expected. it is what americans deserve. to the majority of americans that believe the future will not be better than the past, if barack obama is reelected, you'll be right. host: mitt romney in tampa. guest: i think the most often heard criticism of the romney budget proposal is that you hear specifics on how much taxes should be cut but not how that would be paid for.

i think that is a legitimate criticism. there is real vagueness to the plan. you can see whether they add up to long-term deficit reduction plan, but they are there and detailed. there is in such a plan that romney has put on the table. there are proposals for tax reductions, but he hasn't delved in to how he would do that. the devil is in the details. i hope the romney campaign will be more forthcoming in how the proposals will add up. host: the tax plan takes aim at loopholes and reductions. theresa from crofton, maryland.

caller: good morning. this is the first time i've met a phone call in any political argument. on one side, i see president obama having a world vision of how europe, china, asia, south america, how there, it will affect us and vice versa. i do not see anybody speaking in depths about that. europe is growing worse, where the poor now have a terrible problem dealing with mothers and children, not enough food to eat and the ability of greece,

putting their children out in foster homes because they know cannot feed them. demonstrations in spain and france where they are taxed equally. to think that romney has no vision of how this global economy is going to affect us. obama is trying to get that. i am at a point in decision about who to vote for. i am sick and tired of congress not doing what it is supposed to do, negotiating for the help of the country. i know this is a big or crazy question. i am looking at world economy.

host: thank you for calling, teresa. he talked about not being sure who to vote for for president. what about house and senate races? caller: everything in this country is connected with leveling taxes. the tax has been unfair for generations. host: thank you for calling. guest: i think your global vision is a good thing. we do live in a global economy. what happens overseas does affect us all we do affects them. right now we're seeing some real problems in europe. there are dangers from

excessive debt. it is difficult to reverse those policies. they involve tough decisions politically on spending and revenues. you can see why politicians keep trying to postpone the inevitable. some of measures taken in europe have been unpopular. we should do everything we can to get our fiscal house in order. what is happening in europe is going to affect our economy adversely. hear about headwinds from europe. they will not be buying our goods if the economy tanks in europe. exports are a good part of our economic recovery, but not if our trading partners are going broke.

we need to learn some lessons about what is going on in europe. host: daniel tweets in this question. guest: that is a matter of who owns the debt. the reason for the debt going up. the sharp increase has to do with the recession and the attempts to address it. that is caused by things in the budget called automatic stabilizers. what that means is as the economy goes into a tailspin, revenues go down automatically. people are out of work or not earning as much, so taxes fall. spending goes up on support

programs like unemployment compensation, food assistance come income assistance and medicaid. that might account for roughly a third of the that the set of the automatic stabilizers. we have seen us attempts to come that the recession of the financial crisis, the tarp program and various tax cuts that were enacted. so -- plus, an underlying deficit to begin with. so there are a lot of different factors. again, i get back to this point -- the real crux of the problem is that this is not just about a slow economy. we have rising health-care costs, rising costs for social security -- the big three entitlement programs, social security, medicare, and medicaid are going to be much more expensive as my generation

begins to qualify for benefits. the traditional level of revenues is not going to keep up. you have this growing structural gap that is happening on autopilot not driven by waste, fraud, abuse. earmarks, congress spending like drunken sailors -- i mean, that may be true, but the fundamental problem we have not addressed and are not addressing in this campaign is the structural gap between automatic revenue and automatic spending programs. host: bob bixby has been with the concord coalition for 20 years and served as executive director since 1999. past positions include being a volunteer state director in virginia, tennessee, and west virginia. in 1992, he was the virginia co- chairman of the campaign of paul tsongas. he was the chiefs' staff attorney for the court of

appeals for virginia. the concord coalition has an ad in politico today. it is "an open letter to our leaders in washington." what is the message? guest: the concord coalition is a bipartisan organization -- sam nunn and warren rudman, two former senators, are our cochairs. we have been arguing for a balanced fiscal policy. the message in the ad has to do with this fiscal cliff that is coming up at the end of the year where, for various reasons, we have automatic tax increase is going into effect and spending cuts going into effect. all that is intended to reduce the deficit, and we do need that amount of deficit reduction, but it would not be a good thing to let it all kick in at the same time. that would be a rather irrational response.

what we are urging members of congress to do, with the other groups that you mentioned, is to make sure that any steps that they take to avoid the so- called fiscal cliff is not just kicking the can down the road again, but that they put in place some mechanisms to make sure that the structural issues are going to be addressed, and soon. it is not just kicking the can down the road. there needs to be strings attached. host: let's look at the debt. the national debt surpassed the $16 trillion mark last week. kentucky, our next location. mike, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys? host: great, how are you? caller: great. i have a question for mr. bixby. i have watched the deficit issue through the ceiling.

i cannot imagine solving an issue that we're not even willing to have an honest conversation about. isn't a $16 trillion debt basic insolvency? mr. bixby? guest: well, the question of insolvency is whether or not you can cover your debts, and we can. we are not as a nation broke or bankrupt, but it is where we are getting to a point where you have got to get to the level that could cause problems. it will definitely cause problems down the road, because it is growing at an unsustainable rate. that is what you need to look at. right now, with the rest of the world in top shape, people are willing to lend us money and very, very, very rock-bottom interest rates.

that is a danger, too, because it is like a national teaser rate. you take out a whole lot of debt at a very low rate, and when the interest rates go back out, you have got to refinance at much higher rates. you look at some of the projections -- we are spending $200 billion a year on interest now. you look at the projections, and it could be up to nearly $1 trillion in the next 10 years. that is the legacy of this debt. we worry at the concord coalition quite a bit about the impact of all of this on future generations. we are running up debt and not investing in the future. one of the other things that concorde is doing now is a project called strengthening of america for our children's future. we are working with other organizations in town to sponsor a series of hearings.

they will be cochaired by sam nunn and former senator pete domenici. we are recruiting 35 former members of congress on a bipartisan basis to look at these key issues of what we do about health care, taxes, how we look at this as a national security issue, because it is. if we are running huge deficits and have to go to the rest of the world to borrow money to finance them, and if we have to cut defense spending by huge sums, then it becomes a national security issue as well as an economic issue. i am encouraged that there are a lot of groups in town that are taking up this challenge on a bipartisan basis. i think the public is willing to do it, to. a lot of it gets back to what you said. people where about are we facing insolvency and what does that mean for future generations.

host: connie on our democrats' line. caller: good morning. they say that medicare and social security -- host: keep going, connie. caller: that social security and medicare is the big problem. no matter how little money you make, you have to -- host: you have to what? caller: no matter how little money you make, you have to pay medicare and social security. but when you get to $106,000, you don't have to pay any more. if everybody had to pay social security and medicare, that could help take care of paying for it. guest: well, it they do on make care. there is no income cap on medicare. there is an income cap on social security, 110,000.

one of the social security reform options that is often talked about is raising that cap to bring in more revenue into the system, and i think that that, combined with things that would reduce the projected costs over time, things like raising the eligibility age -- obviously, you don't say to somebody that is 58 or something, well, guess what, you are going to have to wait a few more years. but you can phase in gradually eligibility changes, make it slightly more progressive at the top so that wealthier people receive less. and you could combine that with an increase in the rate, the

cap, as you mentioned. i bet you could work that out, a deal on the hill, if they wanted to stop playing politics and get something done and regain trust of the american people. i frankly think that they could start with social security and work out a deal on that. guest: well, you are absolutely -- tony asks -- right, and one of the things we are going to be doing in our strengthening of america forums -- our first witnesses will be former treasury secretaries jim baker, a republican, and bob rubin, a democrat. they will be speaking to our group to contact us if you would like to attend. i don't know if they are going to specifically talk about this, but one of the ideas we

are going to talk about is this idea that you can broaden the tax base by getting rid of deductions and credits and loopholes and making the whole thing simpler, bring in more revenue that way. that allows you to lower rates. if all you are doing is raising rates on the current rickety, inefficient system, that is not the best way to raise revenue. but this what the simpson- bowles commission recommended, what the rivlin-domenici commission recommended. there are elements of this in the ryan budget. this basic idea of broadening the tax base and then using that to raise revenue rather than just raising rates is, i think, something that the party

might be able to get behind. again, we have to work out the details, but there is a lot of potential. host: let's hear from tyrone, an independent caller in baton rouge, louisiana. caller: good morning, c-span, and how are you doing, mr. bixby? guest: good. caller: i did not hear anything mentioned about the, whether it was a republican or democratic convention. my point is simply this -- they can make all the promises they want, but until they uphold the constitution and protect the constitution, as they swear under oath when they take office, you are never going to get this budget under control. the federal reserve creates the money.

congress mandates -- i mean, the constitution mandates that congress regulates the money. we can hold them accountable to guarantee rights to vote them in and vote them out. until you uphold that, you are not going to solve this. you can have all the committees you want, but ifobody stands up -- except ron paul and maybe pat buchanan. guest: well, i don't get into monetary policy much, but i know what the caller is saying, that the government is tempted to simply inflate our way out of this problem and just print money. that is always a temptation and always a bad idea. so far, we have not seen the federal reserve pump money into the economy in a severe

recession, and the question is going to be in the future how to withdraw that. what is the exit strategy to be able to recover without that causing problems? i think the federal reserve system has been pretty good and responsible and help with the economy over the years. you really have to come back to the fundamental fiscal policy choices, just as families do, about how much income and how much you can spend based on that income. so long as it is responsible -- right now we don't have a responsible fiscal policy, and we shouldn't be relying on the fed to just print money.

ben bernanke keeps saying, and the central bankers in europe keep saying, we need help, guys come from politicians. we need more responsible spending and taxes policies. host: from the website, a bar chart showing debt owned by foreigners. less than half of the u.s. public debt is actually held by americans. oklahoma, republican caller. good morning. lee, are you with us? caller: yes, ma'am. good morning, mr. bixby, and i also wanted to say good morning to tyrone. he made a very excellent point. i wonder if you could help me with this, mr. bixby. i know from what i've heard that this is not definite -- when it comes to loans we have made to china, i guess back to world war ii, and even through the different regime changes,

the different regime changes, it was supposed to hold true that the loans would be repayable, no matter what. do you know, can you elaborate on that and tell me if that is true or not, and if it is, do you say why we -- >> washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the house is backlight again now. objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3397 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3397, a bill to

modify the forest service recreation residence program by implementing a simple equitable and predictable procedure for determining cabin user fees and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 20 mims. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con sense that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include this in the bill. the cabin which i have sponsored for several congresses sets a new fee schedule for the 14,000 privately owned cabins in our national forest. it creates the predictable fee schedule that is fair to cabin owners, the forest service and the american taxpayer. h.r. 3397 will replace the current complex and unfair payment system by assigning

cabin fees to tiers based on the cabin lot's appraised value. the fees would rise with inflation and otherwise would be a fixed fee. this means that families would no longer face sudden, unexpected jumps to unaffordable levels and the maximum fees are kept from going above $5,000 a year. as considered on the house floor today, the cabin fee act is revenue neutral. the score is zero and i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that the c.b.o. score be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: many of the private cabins on forest service land are simple, rustic structures, hand built by the grandparents of current honers early in the last century and passed down from generation to generation. the overwhelming majority of these cabins are modest, family retreats. the purpose of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory workers and retirees and not

just millionaires. which is what would result if we do not make the change in the law. the cabin owners affected by this bill are charged an annual fee for the use of their land on which their cabin sits. they do not get any ownership rights to the land. they have only a temporary and highly restricted use permit for basically the footprint of their can. because the limited use permit is not comparable to the rights acquired when somebody owns property, it has proven impossible under current law to establish a fair basis for setting the fees charged to the cabin owner. the current system has resulted in unrealistic, arbitrary fee hikes that are completely unaffordable for average families. fork, in the northwest the seattle "times" published a report that cabin orders in my district received notice that their fees would increase by

more than 1,000%. from $1,400 a year to $$17,000 a year. skyrocketing fees also make the seasonal cabins unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the high fees also unable to sell their cabins. so unless congress acts to bring about a course correction, thousands of cabin owners will be forced to abandon family heirloom cabins as the currently planned hike fees go into effect. this bill is strongly supported by the forest service because it preserves this cherished, century-old program while greatly reducing and simplifying the services administrative burden. the need to fix this problem has bipartisan support in the house and the senate so i urge support of the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. holt: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, h.r. 3397 sponsored by our chairman hastings authorizes the secretary of agriculture to address the fees for private cabins on national forest land. we remain concerned about the impact this legislation may have on cabin owners of modest means, of which there are many. it appears that in order to reduce the fees for owners in the highest bracket, fees on the middle and lower value cabins would have to increase. many members of the committee do not on to the passage of this legislation at this time. although i wanted to bring up some personal concerns about the inequity of the new fee system. i'd like to work with the chairman and the cabin owners and the other body to achieve an

equitable solution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have no more requests for time, if he's prepared to yield back, i'll yield back my time. mr. holt: i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time an urge adoption of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3397 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i move to pass h.r. 2706 as amended. the clerk: h.r. 2706, a bill to prohibit the sale of billfish. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will

control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2706, the billfish conservation act authored by our colleague from florida, mr. miller. under current law it is illegal to import or sell athletic billfish. despite this, the u.s. is one of the major importers of billfish in the world. while pacific billfish populations in general are in better shape than athletic billfish, -- atlantic billfish, their population levels are likely to worsen. to add more protection to the billfish, the legislation would

make it illegal to sell specific billfish species or possess those billfish for sale whether they are atlantic or pacific. now, i know, mr. speaker, that concern had been raised at a hearing that the u.s. fishermen in hawaii and the pacific insular areas might be disadvantaged by these new rules and that the local consumption of billfish products might be made illegal. the bill was amended during committee consideration to address this concern and the legislation as amended now protects these u.s. fishermen and the existence -- existing limited traditional local consumption of billfish products while they still provide additional and increased protection for billfish populations in the united states. this is good legislation, i support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: h.r. 2706, the billfish conservation act, seeks to ban imports of foreign-caught marlin sailfish and spearfish into the united states. now these fish, as we know from prized photographs of our friends and many of our past experiences, are highly valued as recreational game fish. and serve as the top predators in ocean ecosystems. the so-called lions and tigers of the sea. while this bill is a small step forward and has the support of recreational fishing and commercial interests, we can and should do much more for the conservation of billfish. specifically developing and using more selective commercial fishing gear, cracking down on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and passing legislation such as the bill recently introduced by our colleague, mr. markey of

massachusetts. to combat seafood fraud. it would provide even more protections for these iconic species. however, i and most of my colleagues i believe support passage of h.r. 2706 and we hope that it is a precursor to further action on this important issue. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield delee minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, thank you for the recognition. i thank the chairman of the committee from washington for his recognition and his leadership on this effort. as well as dr. john fleming, the subcommittee chairman, and all the members of the house natural resources committee for their support of this particular piece of legislation. i also have to thank members of the sportsman's community, members of the congressional sportsmen's caucus and in particular, congressman duncan from south carolina, and

whittman, boren, michaud, born and my counterpart in the congressional sportsmen's caucus leadership, congressman ross, latta and shuler, for all their efforts to help advance this legislation in a bipartisan effort. today i join my colleagues in support of h.r. 2706, which is the billfish conservation act of 2012. as the chairman has already said, the united states is the largest importer of billfish products in the world. their populations continue to be affected by foreign commercial overfishing and the importing of billfish only exacerbates a problem that exists today. without passage of this bill and strengthening of the current ban of the atlantic-caught billfish, to include the sale andujar vest of all billfish, excluding as has already been said on the floor today, those fisheries in the state of hawaii and pacific insular area, the current ban will continue to be undermined through loopholes that have hurt ouring an lars and the economy -- anglers and the economy.

by eliminating the sale in the continental u.s., passage of this bill will support the billfish population growth, a healthy ocean ecosystem and improve recreational fishing opportunities. as a result of the increased recreational fishing opportunities, this bill provides a huge economic boost to generate billions of dollars through direct expenditures and marine-related jobs and sales without placing a burden on the u.s. seafood market and its consumers. i urge all my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation, help conserve a very depleted fish population, preserving our nation's fishing heritage and provide for economic growth during a time when our country needs it most. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: may i ask the chairman if he has additional speakers? mr. hastings: i have no more requests for time. if the gentleman yields back, i'm prepared to yield back. mr. holt: i'm prepared to yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2706. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6007 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: union cal ker number 475, h.r. 6007, a bill to exempt from the lacey act, amendments of 1981, certain water transfers by the north texas municipal water districts, and the greater texoma utility authority. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will

control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, include extraneous material on the bill ubbled consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of chairman ralph hall's bill to provide relief to 1.6 million people living in the dallas-fort worth area necessitated because of a bizarre set of circumstances. in 198 , the north texas municipal water district constructed a pumping station in lake texoma, providing up to 15 million gallons per day of safe drinking water to one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country, the dallas-fort worth area. some time later the enactment of a boundary adjustment resulted in a small portion of the pumping station being shifted from texas to oklahoma. in 2009, zebra mussels were discovered in the lake.

this has caused a significant problem because it is in violation of the lacey act to transport zebra mussels across state lines. so to resolve this, the water district has proposed to construct a $300 million, 46-mile closed pipeline that will transport lake texoma water to its treatment facility in wily, texas. all the zebra mussels will then be destroyed there and the entire effort will be accomplished without any cost to federal taxpayers. this project was issued at section 404 clean water permit in may and it was supported by the u.s. wildlife service district office in arlington, texas. however, as happens so many times, the washington, d.c., headquarters of fish and wildlife is not so supportive and has suggested that it describes as a nonlegislative solution. an agreement with the justice

department not to prosecute north texas municipal water district for transporting zebra mussels. just think about this, mr. speaker. as someone who believes that we are a nation of law, i am deeply troubled by the notion that a federal agency would suggest that it would not seek to prosecute under the law those who may violate the law. . ment this aproich is the right approach. -- this approach is the right approach. so i urge adoption of h.r. 6007 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, h.r. 6007, the north texas zebra mussel barrier act provides a very specific and necessary, we believe, exemption to the lacey act amendments of 1981.

the lacey act is vital to our nation's interests because it prevents the spread of undesirable species such as zebra mussels. in fact, zebra mussels may be a textbook example, a poster child for ininjurious introduced species. these mussels are the bane of many power plant or municipal water -- just to keep inflow and outflow pipes clear. they crown out native species and taking all their food and they're driving many native mussels to extinction. h.r. 6007 would allow the north texas municipal water district and the greater texoma utility authority to transport water that contains zebra mussels from the oklahoma side of lake texoma to texas. however, all water would be kept in closed conveyance systems. we are assured.

and we are further assured that all water would be fully completed with all zebra mussels being fully removed before being released into any water body. the biologists, the hydrologists, the water engineers assure us of these things. i do want to emphasize that zebra mussels are pernicious and insidious. i am loathed to seek exemption from the lacey act which controls invasive species. however, texas needs access to this water, and the aforementioned entities have a comprehensive plan for ensuring, we are told, that these water transfers will not cause zebra mussels to spread. so for these reasons and with this understanding i rise in

support of h.r. 6007. i do strongly urge that this bill, which is put forward as a remedy for a very difficult and unique situation, should not be used to set any precedent for granting exemptions to the lacey act or in any way weakening our protections against invasive species. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the author of this legislation, our distinguished colleague from texas, chairman ralph hall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hall: i thank you, mr. chairman, and i of course rise today in support of h.r. 6007, north texas zebra mussel barrier act of 2012. and when i read in the papers and hear in the press that republicans and democrats can't

get together on anything, well, we're together on something today. i think the gentleman adequately described the enemy. north texas has a very serious problem with this invasive aquatic species called the zebra mussel. i'd never heard of them before. i hope i never hear of them again. zebra mussel is going to attack probably just about anything. they infest and cover rocks, attach to boats and docks and clog water pipelines. north texas has a unique situation due to a texas-oklahoma boundary charge and a change that required congressional solution. you know, you hear people say, it takes congress to get something accomplished. well, that's what we're doing today. our local water folks have been working extremely hard to prevent the spread of zebra mussels while attempting to provide enough clean water for our citizens but they absolutely need our help.

they need this help. h.r. 6007 allows the north texas municipal water district to pump water from lake texoma straight in the wylie, texas, water treatment act where the water can be cleaned of zebra mussels without being vy -- in violation of the lacey act. these folks are the only ones who have tackled and solved this problem. they're not the only ones that attacked this but solved this at their own expense and they've solved it and now they need our support. in the late 1980's, north texas knew miss pal water district built the pump stations to better serve its users. this was built entirely within the texas border. in accordance with the army corps of engineers, 1939 survey, which defined the texas and oklahoma boundary line. in 2000, a variation of the texas-oklahoma border was enacted into law and the pump station ended up straddling the two states. since the lacey act prohibits the transfer of zebra mussels

across state lines, it effectively has banned the use of the texoma water pump station since the year 2009. when zebra mussels first appeared in lake texoma. the north texas municipal water district generally receives 28% of its water supply from lake texoma. h.r. 6007 will enable the water district to resume pumping water to better serve more than 1 1/2 million users and to do so in a manner that provides safe water in the tradition of its 20-year history. the bill will allow the texoma water pump to reopen, provide much-needed jobs and provide enough clean water to the community during a season of very severe drought when water's desperately needed. on may 3 of this year the army corps of engineers approved a full permit to allow construction -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hall: permits that would allow construction of a 46-mile

water pipeline from lake texoma straight into the wylie water treatment plant that would remove 100%, 100% of the zebra mussels and provide clean water for north texas citizens and businesses. this is a commonsense solution, a necessary solution and one for which i certainly want to thank chairman doc hastings for and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: does the gentleman have additional speakers? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very, very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i believe the facts of the case in a have been clearly enumerated by both sides are very important for this congress to understand that this is an agreement on both sides. but i think what's happened is

is that due to the -- really the leadership back in the committee, bipartisan leadership between not just mr. holt and the chairman, but also, the gentleman, mr. fleming, have come to the aid and assistance, not just in a bipartisan way but really a commonsense way. the opportunity for 1.6 million people to be able to get water who need this desperately at a time of drought, at a time of much consternation in texas where we have fires and drought and heat and a lot of problems. this means that people of north texas know that congressman, chairman ralph hall and this committee worked carefully to make sure they went through regular order, to make sure they knew the facts of the case, to make sure they studied this well. i really want to offer not just my support for this but really come and thank the committee, the committee chairman for the hard work that has been done on

this. i don't make apologies for coming to the floor to do things that are in the best interest of the people of texas, but this has become necessary as a result of directives back in texas, the inability of people to clearly resolve this. i'm here to support this bill, 6007, and congress working together through common sense. mr. speaker, i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that the -- my statement appear in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i advise my friend from new jersey i have no more requests for time and prepared to yield back if the gentleman is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back my time and urge adoption of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 607 as amended.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2489 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 440, h.r. 2489, a bill to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 under the american battlefield protection program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the american battlefield protection act of

1996 addresses the preservation and protection of civil war battlefields through conservation easements or through the purchase of land from willing sellers with federal grants. h.r. 2489 renews this effort which will soon expire and it adds revolutionary war and war of 1812 battlefields to those eligible for protection. the natural resources committee made several improvements to the legislation, as introduced, including a reduction of the authorization from 10 years to five years. also, the authorization was cut in half to save up to $50 million over the course of the program. it is important to note that we have not raised the authorization one cent over current levels. therefore, there is no increase in strength. finally, the committee added language to prohibit these funds

from being used for lobbying activities or from being disputed to organizations that participate in lobbying. with so many existing needs within a national park service, we want to ensure that these funds go specifically for battlefield protection and not an outside advocacy group. these battlefields are part of our history, and we should do everything we can to ensure that future generations understand what our forefathers went through to ensure our freedom. so with that i support the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman's time is re-- the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank my colleagues from the natural resources committee for working with me to bring this bill to the floor today. our bipartisan bill. the american battlefield protection amendments act. i was pleased to work with

chairman hastings and chairman bishop and ranking members markey and grijalva, to move this bill through our committee. and i'd like to thank the majority and minority staffs for their hard work. the bill before us today re-authorizes the american battlefield protection program, a competitive grant program that matches federal dollars with private money to preserve historic war sites. 2489 builds on the success of the civil war battlefield protection program which has preserved civil war battlefield sites and the legislation expands the grant program to include over 670 historic battlefields from the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. since 1996, when the battlefield protection program was first authorized, the program has helped preserve many important sites, including, for example, the fort greg new market heights

battlefield in virginia. a protection grant helped preserve a 7.2-acre property best remembered because of the unquestioned valor of the african-american union soldiers who fought there. . there are many other examples that i could point to, the wilderness crossroads, the reynolds track perryville battlefield in kentucky, the slaughter pen farm, fredericksburg battlefield in virginia, and so forth. and 2489 would allow the american battlefield protection program to collaborate with state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and willing sellers, and i do want to emphasize that point, to protect the most endangered historical sites and to provide up to half the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. from lexington, where the shot

was heard round the world to gettysburg, where lincoln brilliantly summarized the description of the conception and proposition of our nation, the stories of the american revolution and the civil war bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy, fostered by our founders. unfortunately urbanization, suburban sprawl and unplanned commercial and residential development are constantly encroaching on many of the significant battlefields of the revolutionary war, the war of 1812 and the civil war. this encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historic sites. history is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it and live it. and the battlefields of the american revolutionary war and the war of 1812 and the civil war provide a unique opportunity for americans to experience

where and how the epic struggle for our nation's independence and identity took place. in my home state of new jersey there are more sites of military engagements than in any other state, more military engagements were fought in new jersey than in any other state. and new jersey played an influential role in the war for independence. i was pleased to join representative frelinghuysen and senator latinberg and the rest of the new jersey delegation in establishing some years ago the crossroads of the american revolution national heritage area in our state. the crossroads association has made enormous progress toward promoting our state's rich heritage and the bill before us today i think is vital for organizations like the crossroads in new jersey and others to perform their important work. as a civil war trust said in their letter supporting this

legislation, quote, preserving these american historic treasures is essential to remember the sacrifices that our ancestors made to secure our freedom and independence and to preserve our republican. end quote. historical sites once lost are gone forever. they exist only on the pages of books and in fading memories. we must act to preserve these valuable sites while we still can. approvinging this bill will demonstrate that the members of this house can work together. historic preservation is not a republican issue, not a democratic issue, historic preservation is an american issue because it is our shared history that we are working to preserve and to protect. i think the majority for working with me on this bill during the 111th congress, similar legislation was twice approved by this body, with near unanimous support. and in this congress the

american battlefield protection program amendments act is again enjoying bipartisan support and i certainly hope the other body will act promptly. so that we can get about the work of preserving these sites. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2489 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, this is good legislation, i urge its adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2849 as amended. that's h.r. 2489 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection motte the motion to reconsider is laid on the -- and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. h.r. 6186, a bill to study all flood insurance options and how

such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6186, introduced by my friend and colleague on the financial services committee, congresswoman gwen moore. h.r. 6816 would require the federal emergency management agency, fema, the agency which administers the national flood insurance program, nfip, to conduct a study on the advantages and disadvantages of providing voluntary, community-based flood insurance

through nfip and report its recommendations for implementation to congress within 18 months. h.r. 6186 also requires the government accountability office, g.a.o., to analyze fema's report and submit its comments or recommendations on it to congress within six months. community-based flood insurance is an insurance technique where a risk assessment is made for all the buildings in a community and then premiums to cover that risk are paid collectively by that community rather than the current practice of assessing each building individually and having each individual owner pay a premium. this innovative tool may represent a new and better way for some communities at risk of flooding to take the necessary steps to protect their citizens. in fact, fema has stated in the congressional testimony that voluntary community-based flood insurance could help the nfip better account for the full cost

of flood risk as well as provide incentives to encourage communities to implement greater flood mitigation measures. thus we think that the -- that it is appropriate to commission the study of the community-based flood insurance concept so that fema can under how it could be put to the greatest benefit. congresswoman moore's community-based flood insurance study provision was originally introduced as part of h.r. 1309, the flood insurance reform act of 2011. the bipartisan, long-term nfip re-authorization measure that passed the house with over 400 votes last summer. during the previous year congresswoman moore's study language also was included as part of long-term nfip re-authorization efforts that passed the house, three additional times as part of other bills. unfortunately congresswoman moore's text which is now h.r. 6186 was not included in the

bipartisan biggert-waters flood insurance reform act. that was signed into law on july 6. however, the financial services committee remains committed to enacting this provision and want to commend congresswoman moore for all her hard work on this measure. and i am a co-sponsor and with that i would urge my colleagues to support h.r. 6186 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i would yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to start out by expressing my deepest appreciation to the manager of this bill, mrs. biggert, representative biggert, and also a co-sponsor of this legislation, in addition to representatives bachus and waters, a bipartisan initiative. as mrs. biggert has indicated, this study was originally included in the flood insurance

bill that passed the house that was later dropped for reasons of expediency. it was not controversial. in negotiations with the senate. i believe that a community-based flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving option for communities within the framework of the overall national flood insurance program. the potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. h.r. 6186 would require fema to study a voluntary community-based flood insurance option and examine how much -- how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program. the idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a national flood insurance program , participating community, or a

fema-designated flood plain so that everyone in the community would pay the same rate. now, this approach has merit because it means not only potentially lower rates due to increased participation but there's also the option of providing lower income households with access to vouchers, to purchase flood insurance as part of the group. and the group rating, of course, would spread the risk to an afobbed -- to an affordable extent for each individual homeowner. an analogy for this concept is group or employee health insurance coverage versus individual coverage. we all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to the economies of scale and streamline underwriting. the difference is in this case a community, not an individual,

would be the policy holder. now, this brings me to a very important potential benefit of this approach. increased incentives for communities to take affirmative actions to mitigate the threat from floods in the community. now, while an individual flood insurance holder has absolutely no incentive or means to say, build stronger levees or dykes, a community policy holder would have the means and incentives to take those kinds of precautions. in theory, under this model the homeowner would pay insurance like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis. finally i want to point out that there is precedence for this idea. under current regulations, fema could issue group flood insurance policies. the program was limited but it was successful. this bill only adds for fema to

examine the cost of benefits to using this approach on an ongoing basis as an option for communities. i urge all my house colleagues to support this legislation and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would ask if the gentlelady has further speakers? ms. moore: no. i would yield back the balance of my time. mrs. biggert: ok. and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from wisconsin yield back her time? ms. moore: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: both sides yield back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further

proceedings thon motion will be postponed -- on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4264 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4264, a bill to help ensure the fiscal solvency of the f.h.a. mortgage programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, each will control 20 minutes. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, h.r. 4264, the f.h.a. emergency fiscal solvency act of 2012, will provide the tools necessary

to ensure the financial soundness of the federal housing administration or f.h.a. right now f.h.a.'s well below its mandatory 2% capital reserve with only .24% to cover losses. the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget recently admitted that the f.h.a. may need a $688 million taxpayer bailout because of the depleted capital reserve fund. last friday, september 7, h.u.d. issued its f.h.a. quarterly report which said that in anticipates increased foreclosures, claim activity and related expenditures. the f.h.a. has had an abysmal fiscal track record and to top it off, recent data furnished by the g.a.o. confirmed that the f.h.a. represents about 75% of the sured mortgage market. f.h.a. is a government program that has put taxpayers at significant risk and flies in

the face of private capital returning to the housing financial market. the f.h.a. emergency fiscal solvency act will provide f.h.a. with the tools that it needs to shore up the program, lower the program's risk and reduce taxpayers' liabilities. the bill would establish for the first time a minimum annual premium of 55 basis points and allow f.h.a. to charge up to 2.05%. it would strengthen f.h.a.'s ability to recoup losses from lenders for fraudulent, misrepresented and early delinquent loans. . and it would allow f.h.a. to terminate bad lenders. it also codifies the position of f.h.a. deputy assistant secretary for risk and establishes a chief risk officer for beginie mae. these are common -- for ginnie

mae. on march 27, the financial services committee unanimously passed this bill, and i would urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4264 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i believe that h.r. 4264 will further strengthen and protect the m.m.i. fund, and i would urge all members to adopt this resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i have no further speakers on this, mr. speaker. i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4264, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mrs. biggert: i would request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the yeas and nays

are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois -- sorry -- the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2139, with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, -- sorry. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2139, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the establishment of lions clubs international. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, and the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous materials on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dold: mr. speaker, i yield

myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in support of h.r. 2139, the lions club international century of service commemorative coin act. mr. speaker, this bill, which authorizes the minting and issue of commemorative coins in 2017, celebrates the 100th anniversary of the world's largest service club organization, lions club international. lions club international empowers volunteers to serve their communities, meet humanitarian needs, encourage peace and promote international understanding through service in lions clubs. the lions club was established, mr. speaker, in 1917, by chicago business leader melvin jones, after he posed this simple question to his local business club -- what if people put their talents to work improving their communities? now headquartered in oak brook, illinois, the organization has

grown over the years from that simple question, mr. speaker, to 47,000 clubs and 1.35 million members globally. in that time the lions club has organized local youth programs, taken up the banner to try to eradicate blindness and participate in the drafting of the united nations charter. the lions club has worked in countless ways to improve the lives of people all over the world. mr. speaker, here are just a few of the highlights from this storied and generous organization. in 1925, helen keller addressed the lions club at their international convention in cedar point, ohio. she challenged them to become the knights of the blind in the crusade against darkness. the lions embraced this challenge and have sense helped the effort to save the sight of more than 15 million children through eye screenings, glasses and other treatment. they've established eye care centers and have reached more than 120 million children and prevented serious vision loss

for more than 30 million worldwide. in 1945, mr. speaker, the lions club became the first nongovernmental organization invited to assist in the drafting of the united nations charter. since then the lions club has worked closely with united nations, providing aid and manpower for the united nations children's fund, the united nations education, scientific and cultural organization, and the world health organization. mr. speaker, this legislation does not merely recognize the accomplishments of lions all over the world. the people who voluntarily buy lions club coin each will pay a surcharge on top of the cost of producing and marketing the coin. the coins will be sold as a price which will recover all taxpayer costs and the surcharges go to the lions club to further its work. mr. speaker, this legislation recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of a truly

selfless organization and all of its members who give so much of themselves each and every day. i'm proud to be one of the 292 co-sponsors of this bill and of the 69 senators who have sponsored the companion bill introduced by my good friend, senator moran of kansas. i look forward to its swift passage in this house, over in the senate and i want to make sure that it gets to the president's desk for signature. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. i am so happy to be able to speak affirmtively about this legislation. i am really impressed with the storied history of the lions, their dynamic history, where they serve in more than 200 countries and geographic areas. i am particularly struck by their service and stewardship to our young people across the

world. and i am so proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. i would urge all members to support this resolution and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to recognize another member from the state of illinois, the chief deputy whip, mr. roskam, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. today is the day we can celebrate accomplishment on the private sector and volunteer sector and celebrate a rich history and a century of accomplishment, an accomplishment that is born of service to one another. the gentleman from illinois a minute ago gave a brief history of the lions club international. i am honored to serve as the representative for the lions club international headquarters. and they're an organization that not only, as was previously

mentioned, not only has an impact here in the united states but has had an impact around the world. and i would argue that if you have an impact on vision for children, if you have an impact on vision for others, you're not just having an impact on that family but you're having a generational impact. and so here we are today celebrating the lions international as they're on the cusp of a new century. so there's a lot to celebrate, there's a lot to be proud of here. and i want to thank also chairman bachus and ranking member frank and the staff of the financial services committee and the lions around the world who reached out and built a constituency for this legislation today. i am a strong supporter and i'm pleased to be a part of this bipartisan effort, and i urge its passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i'm just listening -- i yielded back my time already.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has yielded back her time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to wrap up by saying it is indeed an honor to stand up here in a bipartisan way to pay tribute to the literally millions of members of the lions club. they are doing great work across the globe. before i yield back i'd like to ask that an exchange of letters between the committee of financial services and the committee of ways and means regarding this bill be included in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dold: mr. speaker, i have no further requests and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2139, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection -- mr. dold: mr. speaker, i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further

proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 6122. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6122, a bill to revise the authority of the librarian of congress to accept

gifts and bequests on behalf of the library, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6122, to revise the authority of the librarian of congress to accept gifts and bequests on behalf of the library and for other purposes. this bill simply authorizes the librarian of congress to accept nonmonetary gifts of securities, personal property valued $25,000 or less, and voluntary and uncompensated personal services. the librarian is required to disclose the each gift or bequest valued at $1,000 in his annual report of the library of

congress. over its history, the library's been offered various types of donations that it has not had authority to accept. these would include donations of i.t. equipment, audio/visual equipment and voluntary services outside the american folk life center or the center of the book. while the library is currently accepted to have monetary gifts, they will give back to the library in other ways that would be beneficial to the library's mission and therefore to this congress and to the united states. i would urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 6122, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the legislation to authorize the library of congress to accept certain gifts from -- on behalf of the library. expanding the library's authority to accept gifts other

than money is in the best interest of the library. occasionally, the library is offered giftes that would be beneficial but which the library cannot accept such as voluntary personal services or vintage equipment needed to play old movies or audio recordings. further, the bill authorizes the librarian to accept gifts of marketable securities for immediate dispersements and other personal property valued at $25,000 or less. in this budgetary era, failure to make such -- will -- and, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i would ask all members to support this bill and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6122. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3