asked to be addressed before you have a log place like the caller is referring to. host: bradford, pennsylvania, frank is on the republican line. caller: good morning, senator. i would like to say that we do not have an honest tax system. i like simpson-bowles, but it does not go far enough. i think everything should be ordinary income. and then allow your deductions per family and a 10% or a cap and everything else is taxed on 3 or 4 different bases. i get all kinds of capital gains. i get royalties from foreign oil companies in the united states. they are here because they don't get those kind of benefits in norway or sweden. i get gas royalties out of ohio

from a french company. they get 30% they don't even pay tax on. we have to run a country. i think simpson-bowles is the right direction, but i don't think simpson-bowles goes far enough. at one time i thought steve forbes' idea was great, but he wants to keep a certain piece of money that is an entitlement. guest: and makes a very good point that we have got to have the kind of pro-growth tax reform that simplifies the system, broadens the base, lower rates, but that stimulates economic growth and economic development. that means not only getting people back to work but it is the growing economy that creates more revenue, not higher taxes. the growth and the revenues from growth is what we really need to address the deposition and debt. often we don't focus on that enough in the scoring, like the cbo, congressional budget office scoring you see all the time, the revenue from growth is not factored in.

in anything we put together a, like we just made the lower tax rates permanent for 99% of all taxpayers, the revenue now we will get from economic growth because of that certainty is not factored in. if we get 1%, 2% more economic growth, that is huge, that's trillions in revenue over 10 years to help reduce the debt and deficit. that's what the caller is getting at. the right kind of tax system that helps stimulate economic growth will cause a big difference in addressing our deficit. host: two items from the news. the latest jobs numbers released a short while ago from the labor department showing the unemployment rate at 7.8%. the u.s. economy adding 155,000 jobs in december. guest: my reaction is that we've got to continue to add more jobs. we were at 7.7%, so that has

picked up a little. again, that is what we are talking about, talking about the kind of reforms that will not just reduce spending in government but get our economy going. even the last caller referred to important points not just on pro-growth tax reform but on energy. we have opportunities in this country to create an incredible number of jobs and get the kind of economic growth that will help with the deficit. energy is just one great example. also, eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. that is a national-security issues. we have got to do better. the right kind of approaches like we are talking about to stimulate economic growth. host: former congressman barney frank has told the governor of massachusetts that he wants to be in the u.s. senate.

guest: i think it's going to be very important, because we do have to get real savings in terms of addressing any kind of debt ceiling agreement. so i think this is a very important stretched. like you and i have been talked about, buckled down and get it done before the deadline. but it is going to be difficult. that is very clear. you are talking about a big challenge. >> we talked in with the newly sworn in senator. this is just over 40 minutes.

host: we welcome another former governor and now the senator from maine, angus king, an independent. guest: good morning, steve. the senators you have had this morning are 100% of the senate's moustache caucus. john told me i had doubled the percentage of moustaches in the caucus. host: day two on the job, how is it going? guest: i worked here in the 1970's as a staffer in the senate. to come back and find yourself a u.s. senator is an amazing and somewhat surreal experience, to be on the senate floor and have people say good morning, senator, i look around and say who are they talking to a? it's pretty exciting. it is an important time and i am just delighted to be here and looking forward to getting to work. host: you talked about this a lot in maine. why did you want to be in the senate? guest: olympia snowe announced

she was leaving because she was frustrated she could not get anything done and had had it. i thought, i am an independent, i have governed as an independent, i have a background in trying to bring parties together, and maybe we need to try a different way. that is what provoked me to jump into this election. host: let me share with you and the thought of a professor at ucla. she talked about the filibuster issue, which will be first and foremost one of the big administrative issues you will face in the u.s. senate. she says -- guest: i don't know about the motivations, but essentially that is what is happening.

what is important for people to realize is the filibuster has been used exponentially more frequently in the last four or five years than it has throughout american history. when lyndon johnson was majority leader he dealt with on a filibuster. harry reid has dealt with 386. it's totally different situation. my concern is we've gotta get something done. we've gotta problems facing this country. we cannot just lock up. in maine they say the old engine is seized up, it will not go. we cannot have our political system seized up at the time you're facing so many serious problems. so i think it is one of the things that absolutely has to be addressed and addressed in a balanced way. i had the unique experience of going around as an independent and talking to a whole range -- i have talked to 30 senators one-on-one over the last couple weeks, and hearing from republicans and democrats, their

view of this issues. the republicans a we have used filibuster a lot, but it's because the democrats have not allowed us to amend legislation. we've not been involved in the formation of legislation, so we had to defend ourselves. so there has to be a package that involves filibuster reform but also opening up legislation to amendment. taking it back one step further, the democrats will say the reason we have limited amendments is the republicans put in these amendments that are poison pill designed to embarrass us, to force embarrassing votes. it is sort of like, who fired the first shot, everybody forgot. we have to make the system work or otherwise we cannot deal with serious problems facing the country. host: how unusual is it for you to have met with 30 senators? guest: i don't know, but we have

to have relationships and you've got to meet people. there was a week of orientation we had a right after the election. the selection of committees and talk about prayer to live and what the rules are and that sort of thing. i took that occasion to meet with many of the senators one-on-one. then my wife and i came down for a week in december, but meetings. i have met with 30 senators. i think it's 11 republicans and 19 democrats. it was a very illuminating. illuminating i will try to meet them all in the next month or so. host: one of those meetings with the president of the senate, we will come back to that in a moment. years when harry reid said yesterday on the senate floor, on the filibuster rule.

>> so today i will follow the precedent set in 2005 and 2011. it is my intention that the senate will recess today rather than adjourn to allow this rules discussion to continue. i'm confident that the republican leader and i will can come to an agreement to allow the senate to work more efficiently. host: let's go back to the point of fixing the filibuster, can that happen? guest: i hope he's right. i know those discussions are going on. over the last month there have also been discussions involving carl levin and chuck schumer and lamar alexander.

there's a lot of talk about how to do something about this. my concern is that it turns into something real that will help the system and the senate to move forward. you cannot get to any of these major problems, whether it's health care or the deficit or forming the tax code unless the institution itself works. i think that's why these discussions are so important. i am delighted to know and was aware of these discussions were going on and i hope they can come to some arrangement. i cannot handicap it, but i think it's going to be tough, but necessary. host: your at the white house about to meet with vice president joe biden and you told a newspaper what? guest: it was funny. we were going to have lunch, my wife and i and my brother-in-law. we were sitting in the waiting room in the west wing, had an appointment for lunch with the vice president and a voice in the doorway said, king herman, party of 4.

it was the vice president of the united states. joe biden came into the senate the same year i came in as a staff member. he was 29 years old at the time. he and i are exactly the same age. he had to wait a few months to be sworn in because he was too young to be sworn in to be a u.s. senator. host: this was the scene yesterday. what was your reaction at the ceremony? guest: i leaned over to him and said thank you for what you did over the weekend. i think he was indispensable over the weekend to bring these discussions to fruition. that was my comment to him. he is a gregarious guy. again, it goes back to what i said at the beginning. the fact that he was there to step been and complete the negotiations was in large

measure based on his relationship with mitch mcconnell going back 25 or 30 years. that is so important in being able to get things done. host: how many people came for your swearing-in? guest: i have two grandchildren, and three of my five children, and mary's brother, and we had the whole gang. host: the vice president was talking to your aunt? guest: aunt patsy was a state senator in virginia many years. so he was chatting with her. that's my son angus and his wife cricket and my daughter-in-law emily. josh, a grandson, my wonderful wife mary, my daughter molly, a friend corinne, sister bunny,

lives in hampton, virginia. we had the whole gang. host: let's take your phone calls with independent senator angus king of maine. his first appearance on the washington journalas the senator from maine. now, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i have two comments. number one, why is the senate and house -- what do i want to say -- dealing with the lobbyists? why do we have to negotiate with lobbyists before we get to do anything? no. two, why don't you just pass one bill instead of a multitude of bills with a multitude of amendments? only if the amendment and years to the bill itself, no other amendments should be added on to its. thank you.

guest: as far as lobbyists, i don't think there's a lot of negotiation with lobbyists. lobbyists represent all manner of groups. lobbyists has a negative connotation, but it can be somebody representing a business interest or a whole group of business interests. it can also be somebody representing the girl scouts or the environmental groups or citizens' groups across the country. it is a way you get information. they don't tell you what to do, but they provide information and often you get the best information when you have conflicting people who are sort of competing to give you different points of view, and then you can listen and you listen to your constituents, you read, you get information from all kinds of places. you cannot cut off citizen access to the legislature, whether it is organized or not. in terms of amendments, i agree. i don't think we should have amendments that are irrelevant

or have nothing to do with the bill at hand. on the other hand, the amendment process is important, because that's how you improve the bill. that's how you improve the quality of the bill. one of my life principles is that all of us have better talks than one of us. it's through listening to each other's ideas that you end up with the best result. sometimes the amendment process can be abused, but it is an important part of the process, because you have to assume if whatever comes out in the first stages can always be improved. host: on facebook --

guest: well, you had a caller before i was here talking about the debt limit. there was some confusion. the debt limit does not look forward, it looks back. the debt limit is allowing or creating the opportunity to pay the deficit that the country has already incurred, the congress, the president, and the country has already incurred. to take the debt limit hostage is inappropriate, because it puts at risk the full faith and credit of the united states, which would have catastrophic consequences marikana. we don't have to guess about this. 2011, when there was a long argument about the debt limit, you can look at job creation and growth of gdp. it took a hit during that time.

you can see it rather clearly. in talking to many of my colleagues, and i've come to this recently, but i think needs to be some kind of balanced budget amendment on spending. i'm not sure the debt limit is the appropriate place, because the stakes are so high for the overall u.s. economy. spending is going down slightly, as a matter of fact. and the deficit is going down slightly in 2012, but the gap is still too great. that's what we have to focus on, the gap between revenues and spending, so we can make some sense of this fiscal situation, because it is really not fair to our kids. that's what bothers me. host: a graduate of dartmouth college, also from university of virginia law school. you are no stranger to a television studio. guest: i used to do what you are doing, in maine. i was the jim lehrer of maine

for about 16 years, the host of a show which was public affairs. i used to moderate candidate debates for the u.s. senate and for governor. " ultimately, i left that in the early 1990's and ran for governor as an independent. host: roger is joining us from seattle on our republican line. caller: i have a question with regard to illegal immigration. i was wondering if any economist has done a side-by-side comparison to the cost of making illegal immigration -- making those immigrants legal and thereby supporting the growing aging population through taxes and what effect that might have. to me it seems a little more pragmatic to look at an overall view, kind of like ronald reagan did and marco rubio and people like that. i will listen off the air. guest: roger, i don't have a

comprehensive answer to immigration accept i think we really need to look at it series links and i hope this might be the year. i think we have a tremendous opportunity here to act of the vitality of our economy. the problem i think a lot of people have -- and you used the term "illegal immigration" -- you don't want to reward illegal activity. on the other hand, many and people are here only because they were born here. they did not do anything illegal. that's the dream act, where it's the young people go to college or if they serve in the military, they have a path to citizenship. that's a place to start. then we need to talk about those people here illegally and figure out how to deal with that in a comprehensive and humane way. this is a country of immigrants accept for the native americans. everybody here, you and i and

everybody is watching this morning came here from somewhere else. some legally. i suspect, some not legally. i have no idea how my ancestors got here. i think it's time to address this issue and. i hope this congress may be a time we can do so. host: and this -- guest: i think it should go as high as it needs to go in order to accommodate what has already been committed. then me to start scaling it back. i don't want to come across, because i said i don't think the debt ceiling should be a hostage, as being unconcerned about this issue. in fact, i am a hawk on this issue. i'm a simpson-bowles kind of guy. we have to address this. i'm just not sure the debt ceiling is the poor police, because if you are playing russian roulette with the u.s. and perhaps the world economy. i understand the frustration of people who say if we don't do

that, how are we going to do its? there's gotta be some outside pressure involved in making -- forcing these changes. steve, what happened last weekend with this fiscal cliff and the bill that passed, it was fine, but it, but -- it is a tiny piece of the solution. it did not do much. when happened this past weekend was the easy part. the hard part is going to be serious spending cuts and perhaps some additional revenue, not from raising rates but from rebuilding the tax code in a more fair and rational way and bringing the debt down. host: we have been going through a number of opinion pieces along those lines. this is what paul krugman writes this morning in the new york times --

guest: i think that's an overstatement. i think there is a narrower debate going on and that is what is the progress shape and size of government? you can break it down into the numbers. right now the government's, the federal government is spending about 23% of gdp, of gross domestic product. the revenues are about 16% of

gdp. the difference between the 16 and the 23 is the deficit. that is what is killing us. that's almost a trillion dollars a year. that's what we have to bring under control. i really think the debate between the parties is about what is the precise. maybe there are some echoes of republican resistance to the new deal and those kinds of things, but that assumes the republicans are a monolith and the democrats are monolith. i think there are many opinions. i think there are people in the republican party who would repeal the new deal, but others feel it is an important part of the legacy of this country. and think of important to focus on what are the numbers, what is the gap, and how do we bring them together. to go back to historical levels the past 50 or 60 years, expenditures or 20% of gdp and taxes were 18%, there were small

deficits and at the end of the clinton administration there were some surpluses. we need to return to some level of balance. we will continue to have this argument about what is the proper level of social support, health care and those kinds of things. host: senator angus king, independence from maine. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. you can send us an e-mail. or join us on facebook or twitter. lee is joining us from massachusetts, independent line. go ahead, please. caller: hello, senator. i would like to know what the congress and yourself would do about the fighter aircraft and tanks that will be sent to the muslim brotherhood in egypt. it seems to me that ought to be put on hold, seeing it was a deal done by the previous egyptian administration. it looks like we're just throwing more gasoline on the flames of the fire. guest: i am going to dodge the question a little bit because i

have only been here one day. i have been appointed to the armed services committee. i have not had a meeting with him yet. i met with the chair back in december. i am looking forward to that. i do not have enough data to answer that question. i remember an interview with the president in the fall where they asked him what was going on in egypt. the interviewer said, are they friends or foes? to my surprise, the president said, we do not know. egypt has been a very important element in the stability of the middle east over the past 25 years. it is hard to calibrate where they're going.

the president of egypt was proposing sweeping constitutional changes a few weeks ago. it is very unclear. whether you freeze the kind of aid at this point or slowdown is a very legitimate question. host: the news of the morning, latest unemployment rate remains unchanged. 7.8%. the economy adding 155,000 jobs in december. this from the bureau of labor statistics. reaction? guest: the unemployment rate is too high. i do not think that is the number we should focus on. we should focus on the number of new jobs. the unemployment rate can tick up or down depending how many people are looking for work. it is not necessarily directly a reflection of the improvement of

the economy. 155,000 is okay, not great. it takes 80,000 or 90,000 jobs -- i cannot remember the exact number -- just to break-even. it is in the plus territory, but it is not great. i spent eight years, 24 hours a day thinking about economic development. there is no one thing that you can do. there is no one simple answer. some people say, it is just a lower taxes. in my experience, you've got to do a lot of things. i have a friend up in maine who used to say, there is no silver bullet. there is often silver buckshot. we've got to look at regulation.

we've got to look at the mess of our tax code. it is time for a comprehensive rewrite. there has not been a comprehensive look at the tax code since 1986. my view is that we should ought to start with a blank sheet of paper, get rid of all exemptions and deductions and tax expenditures. simplify it, lower the rates, and go from there. right now the only people who like it or the accountants and lawyers. host: barney frank said he is interested in serving in the senate on an interim basis. comment? guest: what he noted is that this is going to be an important 3 or four months.

the idea of having somebody in that seat with some experience and knowledge of the issues make some sense. it is going to be a democrat appointed to that seat. i would not presume to suggest to the governor who he should appoint. the idea of having somebody who could step in with a great deal of knowledge and background is not wholly irrational. i have also heard that my friend michael dukakis was being considered for the seat in there. he is a wonderful guy who i think would make a real contribution. that will be up to governor patrick. it is going to be an important period. even if it is interim, that one vote could be important. host: a facebook comment, president obama thought raising the debt ceiling was a bad idea

when bush was president and said he would not vote for it. guest: with this a filibuster debate that is going on now in the senate between the republicans and democrats, if you go back and read the comments, they were reversed in 2005 when the democrats were filibustering george bush's traditional nominations. i think it is important to do these things on their merits. i think senator obama's vote was a mistake. if there is any truth in this town, it is that there is no dearth of blame to go around. host: how much time did you take to consider the caucus? guest: i did not make a decision during the campaign.

i was asked a question almost exclusively by washington journalists. i was virtually never asked the question by people in maine. most people in maine did not care. they said, go down there and try to get something done. one guy yelled across the diner, i do not care who you caucus with. i am with you all the way. the first question was, could i be entirely independent, not join either caucus and be a free agent. that had some appeal, but based on my study of the senate rules, presidents, talking to knowledgeable people, that would have been almost impossible. i wouldn't have been very

effective. then the question was, if you're going to caucus, which side. it was made easier because the democrats were in the majority. that made pragmatic sense. finally, the important thing to me was determining whether the democrats or republicans would allow me to be independent, would tolerate my not always being a dependable party line vote. i talked to joe lieberman, independent from connecticut. i talked to george mitchell, former majority leader from maine. i had a lengthy conversation with harry reid.

i assured myself -- assured myself that if i do not vote the party line, i am not going to lose my committee assignments. that was the decision i made. it was not an easy one. caucusing, from my point of view -- i did not have to sign anything. there is no blood oath. it is that is who i am going to be meeting with. but i am going to call it as i see it. host: senator angus king, justin is on the phone, las vegas. caller: can you support earmarks as a way to get congressmen to talk to each other again? guest: earmarks and pork are in

the same category. the idea of these tiny things going into a larger appropriations bill that nobody knows about or sees i do not think is a good idea. i think this process should be opened. there should be a justification for it. it should be part of an open process. the second part of your question, getting congressman to talk to each other is really important. one of the problems here -- i do not know if you're watching earlier, but i mentioned that i work here almost 40 years ago -- is relationships. one of the things that has

changed is that the airline service is so much better, everyone goes home for the weekend. most senators' families are back home. the relationships are not built. that is one of the things that makes it hard to get anything done. i am convinced that this fiscal cliff negotiation that occurred over the weekend and was largely based on the fact that joe biden had been in the senate for something like 35 years -- 38 years, i think. and he knew mitch mcconnell. they talked to each other without a lot of nonsense. those relationships are crucial. it sounds silly to talk about, how does the congress function as a reflection of where people have their families and where they live, but i think it is a reality. host: next caller is on our line for independents from massachusetts. caller: congratulations, senator, on being elected to

the u.s. senate. a couple of things i like to bring to your attention. i am a c-span junkie. nothing is ever getting done, because it seems like there's always one person, preferably the one from connecticut -- i am sorry, kentucky -- that always seems that he wants to block everything that is going on, and at crazy amendments to some bill but could not mean anything. all those things add up to not getting anything done in the

senate. i hope that we can change these rules a little bit so we can have some progress in the senate and not just have everything go dead and nothing happens. guest: i am absolutely with you. i do not know the extent to which i will be able to have an influence on that, but i was fortunate enough to be appointed to the rules committee, the committee that deals with these kinds of things, that also deals with campaign finance reform, something i am interested in. the filibuster used to be that you had to go to the floor and stand up and talk. now all you have to do is call the majority leader and say, we object. the talking filibuster says that if you want to filibuster, come to the floor and talk. that is the way it has historically been done. more recently, there has been

this of the screen filibuster where it is not really clear who is behind it or why. it is impeding our ability to get anything done. the senate was created to slow the process down, but not to stop it. not to freeze it. i am a great believer in the senate as a protector of minority rights in small states, but not to the point that we cannot get anything done. particularly with the problems facing the country, we've got to be able to move forward. i am with you. you may have seen earlier, harry reid yesterday talk about discussions he is having with mitch mcconnell. i am certainly interested in following those discussions, and public money was something.

if they do not, i hope we can put it to a vote early in this session and try to make a change. host: when you ran for governor, you defeated the former governor, and susan collins, who is now your colleague. guest: i did defeat joe brennan. and also susan collins. she was elected to the u.s. senate in 1996. we have become good friends. she was most gracious. she is a very able senator, very smart, and absolutely ferocious when she gets into an issue. host: did senator snowe give you any advice? guest: her advice was, stay the course.

when you walk into one of these situations, it is kind of daunting. it struck me in the middle of the campaign. it is also george mitchell's. those are some very big shoes. it is encouraging, exciting, and challenging. host: entitlements and spending, i want to get your comments. [video clip] >> as i said, taxes cannot go

high enough to keep pace with the amount of money projected to spend on them without crushing our economy. the best way to reform these programs is to make them work better. it is not exploding because these programs exist. it is exploding because they are inefficient. they were created in a different era. the era of black and white tv. they should be updated for the age of the ipad. we should want to fix them, not just because you want to lower the debt, but because we want to strengthen and improve these programs themselves. host: how do you do that? guest: of wonder if that is the first time that the word ipad has been used on the floor of the united states senate. he is right.

he is not entirely right, but i think is right generally that spending has to be part of this equation. historically it as an 20% of gdp. 3% of gdp is a very large number. we have got to look at all of these issues. we have got to look at everything. the biggest problem -- there is an awful lot of confusion between social security and medicare. social security is in relatively good shape. that was modified back in the 1980's. they understood the actuarial impact of the changes taking place. a social security can be set on an actuarially sound course for the next 75 years with relatively small changes.

healthcare cost growth is what is sinking us. how that is what we have to focus on. we've got to talk about how we pay for health care. our whole system is based on fee-for-service. you do not get paid to keep me healthy. you do not get paid to council me about my eating habits are smoking habits. i think we need to move towards a system that compensates the medical system for help instead of illness. there are some pilot programs in the affordable care act the talk about changing the way we

compensate for health care that i think in a long run may have more influence and importance to the health care system and parts of the affordable care act than parts of the affordable care act that have gotten all the publicity. the drug benefit that is in medicare was passed without a dime of funding. it just happened. very large expenditure. the bill that created it prohibited the federal government from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for good prices on

volume. think of the volumes of drugs that medicare is buying. that is ridiculous. va negotiates. medicaid negotiates. it would save the taxpayers a lot of money and put medicare on more steady footing. fundamentally, we of got to be talking about, how do we slow down the growth of health-care spending. host: senator from maine, angus king, independent, thank you for stopping by. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> stephen ellis on victims for hurricane sandy. frederick kaufman on why food

prices are rising around the world. 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> a house debate on the emergency funding for hurricane sandy victims. after that, charles schumer and gillibrand talk about the funding. >> somebody took a shot, and as soon as the shot was fired, i went down. each one would fire into the group. then they came around and anybody who was moaning they shot. >> the 150 were made captive and 84 of them were shot down by forces that captured them. the survivors played dead in the

field after they were fired on by machine guns at close range from the distance from myself at the podium to you sitting in the audience. they did not run, they fell to the ground. >> and american convoy is spotted and captured by german troops. on the malmedy massacre sunday night at 9:00 eastern. student camera video entries are now due. get them in by the deadline friday, january 18 for the grand prize of $5,000. zes.000 in total price >> william hague testified on

arms export controls in december. the foreign secretary was asked to update the committee on the arms export policy with syria and israel and the implications of the embargo on u.k. policy. this is about one hour 10 minutes. >> foreign secretary, may we

welcome you to export controls once again. foreign secretary, i am going to start with a question on the foreign arms aid treaty which i gave advance notice in the debate last week. in the debate, i stated the principle of consensus while maybe helpful in getting negotiations under way, that does not always proved to be the case. the principle consensus is not

getting talks under way at all. in the context of the arms trade treaty, the history of consensus is that it is the kiss of death if one is trying to reach an agreement on a big multilateral, multi national agreement. we would not have the land mines convention, we would not have the class of ammunitions convention and so on. the question i would like to put to you is this. if the march negotiations failed -- if they fail and you told us they would be governed

by the consensus principle, what the british government be willing to state that in order to achieve an arms trade treaty, although we may not be able to give unanimous -- it would be a huge advance on the present position where we have no treaty to get one signed by the majority of the united nations. we must take the arms trade treaty back to the united nations and try to get the largest number of nations to sign up on the strongest possible terms. >> bradley, yes. consensus is not an absolute requirement. is preferable for reasons i will mention in a moment. if it proves impossible, we do not want to delay an arms treaty indefinitely, if it makes it

clear that they will look to the un general assembly to take action to adopt a treaty as soon as possible. we will have to evaluate the circumstances of where we are in march. i do not give a categorical assurance about that. we will have to see what the circumstances are. we do not rule that out. if we cannot be achieved by consensus, we will have to do our best to get as many signatures in a different way. the consensus principle is preferable since what we are trying to get to is global standards for regulations on the arms trade. there are some major arms exporters we would like to have in it. the other. i would make is consensus is not quite the same as unity.

that means the states opposing agreements. -- note states opposing agreements. it gives all states reassurance that they can guard their vital interests. i think we can come tantalizingly close to that basis. the recent vote the u. n will have a in the congress with none against, we have come close to conceding by consensus. it is worth continuing to try. >> the fact there were no votes against is clearly an improvement. i just wondered whether in terms of getting any effective treaty and the national agreement, where do you think the bench. are? initially the united states use

the argument that president obama did not want to press the gun ownership lobby prior to the election. if you think it might have a positive effect on actually getting agreement from the united states. you mentioned other arms export countries. to what extent are countries like russia or china determine how effective a treaty is? >> a treaty that involves those countries will be dramatically more effective it. russia is a major arms exporter, as is the united states. we do want them in it. i think it is too early to say

-- and analysis of u.s. domestic politics. last week it may have affected this. we had reached a point in july with the inclusion of ammunitions, which was a contentious point of the united states through article 6 regulating ammunition. the united states are not willing to go a long -- they are not necessarily opposing that. that is not necessarily a showstopper. there are things we have to do to improve the -- the text before us could be improved.

removing some of the loopholes that could be argued with greater clarity on public reporting, prohibitive transfers, getting clear the status for amending the treaty in the future so it can be kept irrelevant in the future. a question about ammunition. there are things that are desirable in improving. at the same time we have to remember we were getting close to an agreement on the july attacks. -- july. >> i appreciate what you just said about ammunition, that is encouraging. they are not resisting it even if they have not agreed to it.

i am wondering if they have a relationship with mexico, and if the situation with mexico has had any effect. it spills over their border in cross border traffic, it seems to reinforce a good strong domestic case for their interest and an arms control treaty that they might not have wanted a couple of years ago. but i think that is a very good case. i think we should seek to persuade the united states that this is something they should adopt and support including with improvements. as we all know well, debates about small arms control in the united states is entirely different from any debate in this country or any european country. we will be absolutely doing our best in the run-up to the

conference in march to persuade other countries to regarded as the vital task -- did the great opportunity to finalize an arms trade treaty. >> there are some concerns russian arms sales to syria, would it be exempt under article 5.2 as it currently stands. i just wonder in the these loopholes that we are trying to tackle. >> that is something we would like to tackle. we are unlikely able to achieve

the absolute ideals of every aspect of this. this is something, an arms treaty we hope will stand the test of time. some of the current agreements are going to become obsolete. we hope we will be able to -- i look forward to the day, we do that no when it is, the current regime in syria will not be there in the current arms agreement will come to an end. >> article 5.2 is seen by many supporters of the treaty as a witness. we want to do our best to try to address it. >> thank you for your classified letter to the committee and the arms trade treaty, which was helpful.

>> if it would be helpful during the process of negotiations up until march, i would be very happy to keep you informed of the going on said. >> we like to be kept fully informed. yes, thank you. let me just now turn to the process of arms export licenses. >> there has been a significant increase in the number of strategic export applications. how has this impacted on the time -- what has been their effect? >> i do not think it has had any significant effect. we are doing well on time.

99.8% within 60 working days in the foreign office. that is even with a sharp increase in the ministerial oversight of such applications. we are up to 153 ministerial supposed to 39 the previous year. 295 toward the end of the year. we ministers are relatively quick about our work. that is not contributing to any delays. >> can we now move on to a number of questions that we want to ask you in relation to --

>> export policy reviews, some have been disappointed they have not been involved in a review of it. some members of industry have not been involved. do you have a particular view on that? >> this was a review within the government. it was asking officials for advice on how we do this differently and better. we had said things we would do in the review, which we have done. in this year, we have had the introduction of everything we

decided to include it. >> it is all internal. >> i want you to know that we have done the things we said we were going to do. we introduced the extension of categorization, new requirements on fees to report for their concerns. i hope that the presentation of public information, including more information to this committee. i am pleased with the progress we have made. >> given the recent history of

human-rights abuses, does the u.k. government have anything in the accord? >> we signed this on the 11th of october. this provides a framework for current and future defense activity, including training and capacity with by rain. that is to increase the stability of the whole region. our minesweepers in particular, they are responsible for any crisis.

we need to regularly amend our defense cooperation arrangements. we have a long history of engagements with bahrain. there have been export license applications in bahrain which we have recently refused or in the process of refusing. does not change our approach to export licensing. with a country that is an ally of ours. they have had internal difficulties. but it is an ally of the united kingdom.

to the extent it includes benefits and human rights training. it is often argued by those in authority in bahrain that what they need is security forces to know what to do, to be trained in how to handle fizz -- in how to handle civil disorder. this defense clause -- it does not relate to all export licensing. there is no problem, if you

would like to see it on the web site. it is not a secret. it is not secret. >> [indiscernible] >> it can appear where you like it to appear. >> [indiscernible] are you able to share any of that knowledge with us? >> we follow that particular situation. this was a in 2009. we followed that closely at the time of the conflict between saudi arabia and the tribes. we do not think british equipment was used inappropriately. our defense relationship with saudi arabia includes the provision of training.

our military training establishment, which includes training on humanitarian law, human rights, and accountability. we have no reason to believe that our criteria was briefed in this situation. -- was breached in the situation. >> [indiscernible] >> we did have the -- we had the revocation of 158 licenses last year. that was an issue of some controversy. the committee held a different view about what the lessons were of that.

i suppose it depends and what you mean by an authoritarian regime. the revocation of licenses to countries in the middle east and north africa. there has been a couple in the last year and that syria -- in syria, the embargo changed. >> in the case of agreement with the u.k. and some other governments, does it have the same status when it comes to restrictions or controls on arms exports and purchased from british companies or exported from this country?

if they decide to transfer equipment, that would not be under subjection to the same criteria that would apply to the arms exports agreement? >> do you mean giving? >> yes, a drifting or lending of equipment. -- gifting or lending of equipment. we only agreed to requests from foreign governments with our foreign policy. it is consolidated criteria in the same with commercial applications. >> if you could give us some more information, that would be helpful.

can i ask you about the review in regards to ministers, the number of items of consideration he said it was overseen by ministers up to 295 this year compared to 153 last year and 39 in the previous year. this is presumably in the human rights section. if necessary it would be referred to other ministers. is that correct? >> the work is led by the arms exports policy. i think it has led to a very good focus on establishing a particular department.

the recommendations that have come to ministers and also come from the embassy, from our human rights department. ministers are given a variety of views. we want to know of those in a disagreement from different parts of the foreign office. >> is this extra ministerial involvement a factor in delaying some of the decisions? >> from the figures i have given, it is not delaying them beyond and expected time. ministerial submissions rigid provisions that come to my office are generally done overnight.

>> [indiscernible] >> i am sure they are quick and other departments as well. with a difficult decision on an arms export license, we like to think about it for a couple of days. they do not sit there for weeks. the officials are very efficient. i believe we have dealt with 98% within 60 working days. one year ago if we look at the table of long outstanding cases, we had seven and now we have none. at that time we had 36 that were outstanding between three and six months, and now we have only 15. you can see the actual numbers of those are taking more than

three months are very small. >> let's focus on syria. there is an embargo on syria. can you confirm this applies not just to the regime but also to support for opposition groups or forces? what would be necessary -- what would be the process required if the prime minister said there was to be a change and he said they are looking at -- what would be required of the u.k. government to decide to supply military equipment to elements of the syrian opposition? >> to your first question, it

applies to all of syria and everybody. it applies to the opposition groups as well as the government. we had just rolled over that embargo from december 1. we decided to do that for three months rather than 12 months. we decided to do that because we do not know how the situation in syria is going to develop a. we think the european union should give itself flexibility to be able to respond. they have not taken any decisions beyond that. it is now for a eu states coming up at the 12th of march deadline whether or not they

want to amend that in any way. it could be an unmanned -- amended so it would apply to the regime and not to opposition forces. it could be amended in many other ways. it would require the agreement of all member states. >> i understand we are already supplying equipment to elements within the surreal -- syria opposition. i am interested to know, that could be military. how strict is this embargo? is it possible if we are giving communications equipment that could be used a in conjunction with weaponry supplied by turkey? or some other countries to

elements within the opposition? >> it is not military. it is certainly not lethal. the assistance includes things like the deployment of our response team to work with their opposition on their future plans. how they are getting help to people with basic needs. we are training through citizen journalist. we are providing water purification hits and generators to help civilians. -- water purification kits and generators to help civilians. to get their message and reporting out to the outside world. as i have said on the floor of the house, of course you have to balance the need to do that -- people are in desperate need.

it gives them genuine help to send these things. it could be used in the way you described, but i think the balance is heavily on the side of delivering such help. we are not going beyond those things. >> what about other eu countries? the prime minister said as far he was aware, no country was supplying weaponry with the european union bart -- embargo. do other countries have the same strict view of what is to be supplied as far as the embargo? >> i believe so. >> does the government have to report somewhere -- do we inform our italian partners what we are doing and they inform us of what they are doing? >> if you -- if they were to

breach the embargo, that would be an illegal act. i have no indication from any -- >> there is suspicion that france has been supplying equipment. is that true? >> i have no evidence on that. >> the march 1 deadline, if it was decided because the situation in syria is moving rapidly and it could come to a tipping point over the christmas recess, how would that be changed, the three month deadline? can it be taken by other means? >> to amended before the first of march, that can be done, technically.

it could be done technically at any council of ministers of the european union. it would require unanimity. all 27 states agreeing on a. there are a variety of views on what to do next. i think it is likely to be unchanged in the coming weeks. we are looking at the first of march. but that is not impossible. >> [indiscernible] >> a un security council resolution -- if the united nations adopted an international resolution with an arms embargo -- >> or say there is no arms

embargo. >> than it does to any nation or the european union's to still have it. >> does the prime minister discuss the treaties with the governments of the middle east? >> he frequently raises it with leaders of other countries. i an not really able to say the records of the meetings that he has had with specific leaders in the middle east. that is confidential for obvious reasons. the prime minister does raise the arms treaty internationally. >> [indiscernible] what can you say on the public

record? >> it is important to bear in mind that no country voted against -- they are holding a conference at the end of march. the specific attitudes, they have not been the most trouble some countries. would you like to expand on that? >> i think there is a generic concern -- their concern is the treaty would not make it more difficult for them to acquire weapons that they need for giving themselves defense. we have reassure them it would implement criteria closely to what we implement it.

the arms treaty would not add anything on top of that. they should be reassured it would not make it more difficult. >> could you indicate what level of power the prime minister would have on the treaty? >> the ministers were involved to get to where we got to in july. if we need to call an phone calls to other leaders, when those negotiations come to the final point, he will be responsive and keen to help. >>

[indiscernible] deep feel the implementation of that -- [indiscernible] if that is the case, i think he alluded to they had not been sufficiently informed not just on the review but the implementation of the review. would there be any problem --

what has been done to implement it? >> i am all in favor of maximum communication. we can do that. we can organize the meeting to do that. human rights advisory group that covers all subjects wide- ranging, but with many key ngo's represented on it. our approach to the arms treaty in march, i think they are very supportive of the action taken to sponsor that conference. i do have discussions with some of those organizations. i think there is no problem whatsoever -- we have months to

implement the review. >> let's turn it to class and munitions. >> -- class and munitions. >> can you give indication on whether your department plans to produce or try such an accord. >> a number of the banks have issued clear statements on that. they would not knowingly invest in producers.

we will now monitor welcoming what those banks have done, we will monitor what other institutions to take. i would encourage them to spell out their positions clearly. i would hope that will deal with the issue. we prefer a voluntary approach. i would not rule anything out of we do not get that. >> i am sure people want to make sure that they are consistent -- surely your department should be taking a more active interest in making sure there is an informed discussion about the financial positions and they have not publicly adopted a court of

conduct, they are actively encouraged to do so. >> we are monitoring closely which ones do this and which ones do not. i am happy to say now that there is not -- every financial institution is making their approach clear. we will have to ratchet up the reminders, the pressure of the greater active interest of the government. i am not ruling anything out, but i would like for them to do this themselves. when i come back to committee in a year's time, if we have not seen other financial institutions do it, we will look at for their actions. >> we have had a request for advice from one of these

institutions. we have provided that. >> then the relationships between the uk criteria and the eu position -- >> the european council has announced an inclusion of the first part of the review of the common position. what do you>> the initial findis reported in the council conclusions adopted, the eu member states concluded the composition is working well. further work need to be done on

the implementation. we now have to wait for the results of that work. it is too early to say we are completely satisfied with it but we are happy with the way the work is being conducted. it makes sense to await the outcome, particularly the adoption of the arms trade treaty, the end product of the review. >> the government seems to be satisfied. no means to know whether it is satisfactory are not because it has not been done in public. as has been put to us by the externalould stakeholders have been involved in this process and should there be more transparency? >> there should be more openness

in eu affairs. and this process is being conducted by the external service. it is for them to decide who to consult. they have had a meeting with civil society in brussels on the fourth of december, including the review of the common position. i do not have a list of who attended but there was an opportunity for ngo's to attend. that is a beginning. >> it sems the uk's own consolidated criteria are weakening in some aspects and the european union's competition. do you agree and if so, do you

have any proposals to introduce legislation to make them in line with the european union position? >> as far as i can see, our export accord fully with the position. there are -- the wording differs in some minor suspects. >> we were not told was minor. we were told issues of national security assessment and the fed's interest were considerably weaker. >> i will like to see any substantial this argument on that. that would not be our view on the moment. so let's have the details of that. do you want to comment further

on that? rex nothing related at. there is nothing to do our criteria -- >> nothing really to add. there is nothing in our criteria. >> by all means, sir, do follow it up. maybe there is a misunderstanding on how we do these things. rex turning out to a particular aspect germane to your problems are arising out of the new licenses being issued to deal with somali piracy. some of the export licenses approved to some countries like madagascar include assault rifles, body armor, night-vision device clos, etc. the committee could army out of that. -- you could make a good army

out of that. how sure are you these weapons are not being exported for maritime security and might not be diverted. russia is another country getting this kick. may you give us your view on that? >> it is of this very important -- it is obviously very important to fight piracy affectively. part of that is proper protection. that is resulting in the debt and increasing number of applications for these sorts of things -- weapons and ammunition, body armor, other equipment. the two things to say about that

-- and the application is assessed on a case by case basis against the criteria, taking into account the risk of internal repression in the destination countries. some of the destinations do raise some concerns against our criteria. secondly, subject to that, we approve companies send it to the international code of conduct. >> a british company using special forces personnel on a ship off the horn of africa would be subject to this control? >> they are also, the conditions are attached to open licenses and include in the parse it operations ltd. to vessels registered, and equipment only use by names.

companies must provide it will of the engagement with each application. there is a limit on the number of weapons that can be helped in any one country at a time so that no one could form an army. weapons must be stowed securely at each destination, usually with the country's national security organization court authorized armory. -- or an authorized armory. >> thank you. >> turning out to the missile technology. >> the international development many -- committee, we heard for ourselves the impact of drones

and the way they're being exploited. the very powerful attack on american engagement. could you give us some reaction to the argument being put forward by some of the suppliers, that they are worried missile technology is damaging the market for drones. and they're looking for some kind of relaxation. i know what our policy is related to drug activity -- drone activity. >> the controls on -- under the mtc are the controls on the export of uav's. those capable of traveling

beyond a range of 300 km are subject to a strong presumption of the nile for -- of denial for export. that will be important, given there are more and more countries interested in such technology. effective controls in this area will remain very important. that is not to say we do not need to amend them over time but it will remain very important to have strong controls. >> what about the practice of leasing drones? it is being argued this could be a way of getting around some of the regulations.

given that the u.k. is self released these drones and afghanistan, to those have to comply to the same relations -- regulations? can we assume that if they are rented, the same rules would apply? rex there should not be a way of getting around the controls. the same controls apply, as i understand it. >> following the remarks, were you saying that the british government will resist any attempts to weaken the missile technology control regime in

relation to drones? >> i'm sitting there has to be a strong regime. it may have to be amended from time to time. >> you are not giving us assures the british government will resist -- >> we are no in general -- our position is not, on the arms trade treaty, export controls, to make things tougher over time. i do not know what other people will describe as a weakening of the position. >> [indiscernible0 >> i discussed with the prime minister of iraq many issues. i cannot start listing what has

been discussed at every meeting. it would be amazing if we had not discussed this sort of a share. >> the last area, countries of concern. we want to begin with afghanistan. >> the defense secretary made a statement about the revised timetable in terms of numbers of troops in afghanistan. of what to ask about the implications of that -- i want to ask about the implications of that for equipment. i understand there are about 3000 armored vehicles and $11 -- 11,000 containers of the equipment in afghanistan. presumably, a large part of that will have to be sent home

securely somehow. some of it will not be brought back. my questions are really, what are we going to take to do with the equipment be leave behind? withthat hethen come an export controls? what guaranteed to have the of the handover some equipment to the afghan forces that those afghan forces are not going to then sell it to or have it captured from them. is it being assessed that what might and the in of the hands of the taliban or some al qaeda believe the group's? >> the defense secretary give

some information to the house and did in november about our plans on this. he told the house our intention is to respect all the equipment is the lead to the armed forces is greater than the cost of extraction. and recuperation. you would expect that to include woodall sophisticated -- inc lude with all sophisticated equipment. the can -- we can also bring some equipment out by air. there are no plans currently to leave any equipment behind. if we do that, all the relevant

issues will have to be looked at -- but we will be regarded the and the the same way. >> will export licenses have to be issued? will there be a need for parliamentary approval be? >> every opportunity -- >> the equipment from the uk requires an export license. if the gift is above a certain by a, they are called in advance

-- certain value, they are called in advance. >> i think it will be revisiting this issue. >> i'm sure. >> coming now to argentina. >> the cake government introduce restrictions -- the uk government introduced restrictions. in terms of eu government and other allies, to encourage them to similar restrictions. there is an inconsistency in the government position. >> i did not think so. our policy was changed in

response to argentine actions. we do have a particular interest. that is the united kingdom. we do expect all countries to take the actions of the argentine government into account. they have to make their own assessment of that. i think the -- trying to persuade to spain, for the sake of argument, i do not know they export relevant equipment addition not export. due in the gillard -- there would be a large argument for no particular benefit. i do not think other u.k. countries regularly adopt this

position. would bet think that a very productive use of our time. >> does the department have any figures for the number of u.k. exports being restricted by this decision? >> there were 37 standard that is -- standard licenses revoked which covered components, but their aircraft, the naval vessels, software from military to medications, equipment. the amounts were very small. less than 2 million pounds in the last year. other ministers regularly agreed.

given the change and the position adopted in the 1990's not to have any exports, that was not out of date. that the amounts involved were very small. >> the defense minister almost immediately following, those given circumstances were in that war, british ships were sunk with french missiles. i find extraordinary the bridge government is not willing we do the british government is not willing to try and persuade other parts of argentina to adopt more restrictive policy,

now being followed rightly by the british government. we should not be willing to resort yourself in that way, i find that interesting to request we are in a different situation. emetic time in the capabilities of the argentine -- in terms of the capabilities of the argentines. the responsiveness of other countries on this might be limited. we have taken our action because we do not want to contribute in any way ourselves of maintaining their military capabilities. there are compelling reasons why the british to rent -- to adopt

a more restrictive arms policy towards argentina. the sources of the information available to you i am sure have very good reasons for the policy. >> i do not think that would become the general polis security have to direct our diplomatic efforts to where they're most likely to be protected. nor do i think we are anywhere near on the way. >> following the development solution to israel, what action, if any, are you taking? >> we constantly monitor the

situation. we have taken account any changes in circumstances. in the recent conflict last month, the british embassy and tel aviv monitor the situation closely and the effect of the use of israeli defense forces and weaponry. my own conversations with the israeli foreign minister to abide by international human -- humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties -- you had a written answer on this fro. have a letter to revoke --

unlike anything we have seen in the situation. >> we have no assessment to date whether you can weapons components were used but we have to remember the circumstances. from statements i've given on the floor of the house, the wider the situation, the immediate and principal cause of the conflict -- with the increased frequency of rocket attacks on southern israel.

>> what a good bet was rigid in the u.k. -- what equipment originated in the u.k.? >> we have no evidence to date of any kit weapons proponents contend of this -- opponents in this. that is what happened in previous conflicts. we have not gotten any evidence to date. >> in relation to the situation in the west bank.

>> you are aware there are items of equipment to use to build a barrier in the west bank. emit a very clear. -- you made it very clear. how can there be an assessment about what stage to use equipment?? >> that is one of those wider questions. under licenses and the arms export control regime, it is a legitimate issue to raise. i do not want to give -- is the

rules on that. >> thank you for coming today. thank you all. i feel confident that a corresponds with to the committees and yourself will continue. sickie very much. -- thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, the house debate on a merchant and the per hurricane sandy victims. then charles schumer talks about the funding. the lead dora college votes for president are announced in congress -- the electroal college votes for president are not in congress.

>> it is true that people history is a result of synthesizing the work of a great many other historians. -- happened in the 1960's with the counterculture was a whole new generation of young. historians have young. they were we evaluating >> -- re and by waiting all aspects of our past. -- re evaluating all aspects of our pastorate >> i like to watch c-span because i can get news about the goings on in of the debates an election is covered. unlike their programming because it is clear, direct -- i like their programming because it is clear, direct.

and fell one to get on filtered information -- if i want to get information, i watched cspan. >> the house has approved $9.7 billion to play -- pay flood insurance for home and business owners flooded out by hurricane sandy. the final vote was 354 to 67. the no votes were cast by republicans. gives more borrowing authority to the national flood insurance program to pay 150,000 pending claims related to the hurricane and 5000 claims unrelated to sandy. here is a flop -- house floor debate. just under an hour.

but this storm has left millions without power. the legislation today is very simple. authorityses fema's temporarily. this legislation is vital to insure homeowners and the affected areas will be able to continue to have their contractual flood insurance policies honored. but temporarily increasing the authority to home owners and insurance companies handling the claims, the federal government will meet its contractual obligations. people have been devastated by the storm. we will continue to move forward and on march. the gentleman from new york led a group of members to repair some of the areas. i was pleased to join the gentlemen in their volunteer activities.

well we with this much devastation and destruction, we also saw determination, friendly faces and volunteers from across the country committed to restoring and rebuilding this area. it is more difficult to be on the ground physically working, lifting, building, cleaning gary it is the hard work and determination of the citizens of the area of volunteers will be the driving force. to conclude, i commend the gentleman from new york for his efforts and the others around. i look forward to working with him and others in the area.

>> i am pleased that today, though it may be late, we will act on legislation vital to the disaster relief legislation to increase the borrowing authority by fema on behalf of the national flood insurance program. this bill will enable the provisions of relief for 120,000 flood victims to a weighted far too long. i support today's bill as an important state for -- step for recovery. i believe the house's actions to date are slow. we have some commitment but we're moving forward and i'm hopeful we will get these kohl entitlements but the people vitally need. some of the programs include the army corps of engineers to work

to protect shorelines and coastal commodities -- communities. let me take some time to think mr. garrett -- to thank mr. carey. and every member of the new york, connecticut, and new jersey delegation for working together to ensure our people receive the kind of aid they need. to my friends mr. grimm and mr. king of new york, they worked with our governor cuomo, but working cooperatively. not as a democrat or republican but as an elected official to come together to the aid of

people who need aid. aid from a terrible storm. i'm hopeful we get certain things done and the people of this region receive the kind of aid it needs. i reserve the balance of my time. the gentleman for his time. but that, i yield now to the gentleman from texas. >> there is no doubt hurricane sandy rendered unspeakable damage. it represents one of the great natural disasters of recent history. for millions of our fellow

citizens, the devastation has been unspeakable and unfathomable peopl. it is time to rebuild. the victims who pay for flood insurance policies with the national flood insurance program, their claims need to be paid and paid now. here is the tragic reality -- the national flood insurance program is broke. it is now a taxpayer bailout broke. regrettably, not unlike our nation. debt to the chinese, the shameful bill pashtun -- sent to our children and grandchildren. members are faced with a tragic choice of not paying contractual claims to victims to pay the premiums, adding $9.7 billion to an international debt that

threatens our national security, economic well-being, and our children's future. emergency bills like this should not come to the floor without offsets to pay for it or struck for reform. less than 24 hours into a new congress, there is not time. for more than four decades this experiment in government provided flood insurance has been ineffective, inefficient and costly to hard working

american taxpayers. we passed the reauthorization bill to begin eliminating outdated subsidies and -- will the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds? >> i yield an additional 30 seconds. >> skwroutd dated subsidies and get the program on a path for its actuarial soundness but sandy hit before many provisions could take effect. i wish to inform all members in this congress our committee will take up legislation to transition to a private innovative competitive sustainable flood insurance market one that serves the needs of all our countrymen but ends the unsustainable taxpayer bailouts once and for all. a great physical tragedy of today should never become a greater fiscal tragedy for our children tomorrow. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman for his leadership and yielding. mr. speaker, the victims of super storm sandy can wait no longer. it has been 11 weeks. haven't they suffered and waited long enough?

the people who we represent, who sent us to washington to serve and who are now not merely crying out for help, they are screaming for assistance, demand we act without further delay and pass this bill to immediately increase the borrowing authority of fema and carry out the intended purpose of the national flood insurance program. that help is embarrassingly overdue. right now as we fail to act and do not pass this bill there is a total of 120,000 flood insurance claims payments that will be delayed and not paid. this bill before us now both temporarily increase the borrowing authority for the national flood insurance program by $9.7 billion. much more is need and a vote has been promised of $51 billion on january 15. that absolutely needs to happen. funds for katrina passed this house in less than two weeks. we have been waiting for 11 weeks -- for 11 weeks. funds for ike and gustav passed

very quickly. the northeast corridor has been waiting for 11 weeks. it shouldn't take much imagination to appreciate what it is like for those who have been waiting who have been affected by the flooding caused by the super storm. 11 weeks they have waited while this body sat on a bill that should have long ago been signed, sealed and its help delivered to those in desperate need. they wait for the billions that they need to rebuild. they needed for the transportation system. to prevent floods in the future. many shivering in the cold of new york where temperatures are below freezing. they are in homeless shelters and hotels with friends. they are waiting. this body needs to act and

needs to act today. it is long overdue. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> i thank you. i yield now to the gentleman from new york who recognizes that the people from the area have not been waiting, that their insurance claims have been paid from day one and we are just here today to ensure that those payments continue going forward. i yield two minutes now to the gentleman from new york. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation. this legislation is the first that is needed to provide the assistance and relief and aid that the people of new york, new jersey and connecticut require after the most devastating story in our history. in many ways within the top two or three severe storms in the history. this is essential because people are suffering and suffering increasingly each day. as i said, this is the first major step we are taking. hopefully this will be concluded and completed on

january 15. i want to thank the leadership of both parties for coming together but i want to suffice this is vital. this is not a handout or something we are looking for as a favor. we are asking to be treated the same as victims in all other storms and natural disasters. also i think it is important to lay out this is part of the process that in the legislation originally going to be introduced in this house it was never an earmark in the bill. there was never any extraneous spending. he can it is more than to realize that. the house of representatives bill was always targeted toward victims of hurricane sandy. it does not go beyond that. it is also important to realize as we are talking today and as the vote goes forward and as we go forward to january 15, the real suffering is out there.

these people, my own neighborhood homes are devastated. a woman lost two sons in 9/11 and she lost a home now. this is a crisis of unmanualable proportions. the national media is not following it. if you saw the suffering going on or the people that don't have food and shelter you would realize how horrible this is. it is important we put this behind us and stand together and all as americans. i think governor christie and governor quote have set that model and let's go forward standing as one. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and also as we go forward on january 15. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i would like to call up the young man who has been a leader in this in new jersey for one minute. >> the gentleman from new jersey is rocked one minute. -- the young gentleman is

recognized. >> madam speaker, this action by the house republican leadership is too little and too late. i have to say i'm still very upset and i think it was deplorable that the speaker did not bring this bill up and the whole package that addresses the hurricane sandy relief in the lame duck session in the last two days of congress. it would have been passed, it would have been on the president's desk and we would have started to rebuild the shore. it is nine weeks, 10 weeks, whatever it is delay, i have no idea what the senate is going to do. my understanding is that the senate is mired in filibuster the next three weeks and isn't coming back until after the inauguration.

we could be waiting another three weeks. the rest of the package, which is the most important part of it, might not come up until we return after a week's break. we will be on recess and come back the 15 and hopefully the rest of the package comes out that day. that means we have three separate votes on this package that could have been pass and signed into law the last couple of days. that is not acceptable. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. >> to the other young gentleman from new jersey one and a half minutes. >> i rise in strong support of h.r. 41. i want to thank leadership for posting it and the chairman for offering this legislation boosting the nifp borrowing authority by $9.7 billion. the devastation unleashed by sandy is without precedent and the impact d communities are in dire need of comprehensive assistant. nowhere is this more evident than in the sheer magnitude of the housing damage and the subsequent housing needs.

according to governor christie sandy damaged or destroyed 346,000 housing units. that number some 72,397 were covered by the national flood insurance program whose owners have submitted claims and are awaiting the insurance payout for comprehensive repairs. thus far only 18% have received funds pursuant to their claims. over 80% of my constituents are waiting in limbo and in intolerable situations that is making a bad situation worse. more of our -- moreover, there are a society of 115,000 insurance claims relating to sandy many of them waiting. this is must-pass legislation. we have an obligation, we have a duty, to meet this compelling need and contractual obligation. this legislation takes us in that direction and i want to thank chairman garrett. >> the gentleman from new york.

>> i want to thank mr. garrett especially for earlier his request to make sure that we included on this bill every member from the new york, new jersey, connecticut delegations as sponsors of this bill. and every member of the committee. i want to thank the ranking member mrs. waters. we are all looking at this together and i want to thank mr. garrett in allowing everybody in the delegation to be part of this bill. now i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished whip of the democratic conference and individual who walked with me in breezy point and up and down on the rockaway beach. steny hoyer. >> i want to congratulate all of the members who represent new york, new jersey, connecticut,

pennsylvania and other jurisdictions who have been united in a bipartisan way to say let us reach out and act now to help those who have been savaged by sandy. madam speaker, i rise in support of this bill that will help ensure flood insurance benefits will be available for those struggling to recover from super storm sandy. while it is never too late to do the right thing, it is late that we are doing this thing. and we are doing only the bare minimum. because the flood insurance will expire. but frank pallone is right, the senate hopefully can act by unanimous consent. hopefully. on this small portion. but as we did in katrina, we should have acted almost immediately to meet the pain and suffering and loss of the citizens, our fellow americans,

who were the victims of sandy but shouldn't have been the victims of our delay. a support this legislation and i urge the speaker and all of us on both sides of the aisle to ensure that on the 15th of this month we act for the balance of the initial dollars that will be available to assist those who have had this loss. i will be very supportive on the 15th and i know that people of connecticut, of new jersey, of new york, and of pennsylvania and of america will hold the speaker and all of us to the promise that no later than the 15th of this month, some 11 days from today, that we will make a full contribution to those people.

i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> i yield to the gentleman from new jersey who also recognizes that there have been absolutely no victims of delay when it comes to the flood insurance program because their payments have been made continuously because that program has been funded and we continue to fund it. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> i thank my colleague for yielding. it has been 70 days and the residents of the northeast many have been living in misery and heartache. i'm pleased that we are taking this step to support the national flood insurance program, which has met the needs of americans across our nation when there's been flooding crises. we in the northeast have been facing this craves now for 70 days. i'm glad this essential program is going to be supported.

there are about 125,000, from what i understand, sandy- related claims that could be met by raising this cap. and i think it is good that we are about to do that. this, as others have said, is the first step of what we need to do to rebuild lives to put aside the misery that so many families and businesses have been suffering for this length of time. it is the right step on january 15 and we will be considering a much larger supplemental. a total of $60 billion, which will meet the needs, not all the needs of,connecticut, new jersey and new york and the region, there are considerable needs. but the national flood insurance program is a good program and this is a good support. let's get about it and do it in a bipartisan manner. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i yield one minute to the ranking member and fighter for small businesses throughout america the lady from.

>> i ask for unanimous consent to put in my remarks. sandy has devastated new york and thousands of my constituents lost their homes and businesses. and it is a shame, an embarrassment for this institution that the house republican leadership continues playing games with this essential assistance more than two months after the storm struck. it is indefensible that as americans continue to suffer from sandy's impact that the house majority could not get their act together to bring the aid package to a vote. this is also the case with

today's legislation. while i fully support providing fema with additional funding, it is just another sign of the majority's dysfunction. with fema just days away from being unable to pay flood claims the republicans argue among themselves about what to do. that is sad. it is a sad situation. so today we are taking -- 10 morning seconds. by flood insurance. what about small businesses? they are getting nothing. we as an institution come together when there is national disaster across this nation. my sits deserve nothing less. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> please i yield two minutes from the gentleman from new york who led the efforts on the ground putting his shoulder to the grindstone to help restore some people's homes.

>> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. first, madam chair, i would like to take 15 seconds to tell chairman garrett that as much as i appreciate him bringing this bill to the floor today, he came to my district with his wife, came to midland beach, was in one of the homes, several of the homes that were completely devastated, pulling out moldy sheetrock and bringing a little hope to people in complete despair and for that i will be eternally grateful and i do thank my chairman for that compassion and letting the people even outside of his own district know that he is there and cares about them. i would also like to share with you, i called someone this morning from staten island that lives in new york beach and they have a teenage son named

dillon and they have not been back in their home since the storm. i asked how are your two sons doing. he said they are great but dillon hasn't gone back to the house to help with the construction because he gets choked up. it is that that i want to emphasize here. these are human beings. children that have been completely displaced. it is up to us to get them back on their feet. today is one of those steps that i'm proud to be part of and tell dillon that he is going to be ok, we will get him become in his house. i would ask as we go forward with the other parts of sandy relief that my colleagues will stand with me and tell dillon that he will be ok. with that again i want to thank all of my colleagues across the aisle. it has been a pleasure to work with you.

i want to thank chairman garrett one last time. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york. >> i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member from the appropriations committee and hard fighter. >> the gentlemen woman from new york is recognized. >> i thank the distinguished ranking member for your eloquence. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation and i would like to thank chairman garrett for introducing it and efforts to bring it to the floor. the national flood insurance program has hit its limit. without increased borrowing authority it couldn't pay for himself as early as next week. that means 120,000 payments will be delayed all of which nearly due to hurricane sandy. but this is not enough. in december the senate passed an emergency assistance package to aid in the sandy recovery which included this legislation.

earlier this week i expected as did my colleagues that the house would vote on a complete emergency assistance package to aid those in connecticut, new jersey, new york, who have lost homes, businesses, their livelihood. sadly the 112th congress ended without action and now we are starting over on an important legislation which is critical to help storm-affected areas that should have and could have -- we know that -- there is no reason it was not signed in 2012. however, we have now been promised a vote on the sandy emergency assistance package by january 15. families in my district and throughout the region are looking to congress and asking, why are you making it so difficult for us it rebuild?

why are you making us wait to rebuild? today's legislation is a start, only a first step toward providing relief to those who suffered as a result of hurricane sandy. we don't know a piecemeal approach. that is not the way the congress acts. we need a comprehensive sandy recovery bill passed today. we hold you to your commitment january 15, not a day later. we need this complete bill. thank you. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey who has seen the devastation. >> thank you, madam speaker. it has been 68 days since hurricane sandy devastated the northeast and over two months of suffering for my constituents.

while it is unfortunately long overdue i'm pleased we are finally here acting to help the people of new jersey recover. this hurricane has caused billions of dollars of damage uprooting individuals and families from their homes, forcing businesses it close, and resulting in job loss and revenue loss. my constituents need help now to recover. i have witnessed firsthand the devastation in places lake seaside heights, and i can say that these places look like war zones after the storm. whole communities have been wiped out. governor christie estimated the damage in new jersey to be over $36 billion. i applaud his swift action on sandy recovery and join him with all local and state federal leaders in new jersey to ensure all relief funds get to new jersey and families and busy as quickly as possible. this includes adequate funding for a program we are voting on today and i urge passage of this essential legislation.

>> the gentleman from new york. >> at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from jersey the member of the ways and means committee. >> it is like we are having a sadie hawkins dance. the real sponsor of this legislation are the people that are hurt. it took only 10 days after trepb until president bush signed $60 billion in katrina aid passed by the congress. how dare you come to this floor and make people think everything is ok? in fact one of the gentlemen from new jersey said we have not waited at all. the insurance runs out in one week. what are we going to do? wait one week and act? we would not be here. who the heck are you kidding. so we all come together very nicely this morning for breakfast and eggs and we know what has happened over the last 10 days.

this is a total, total disaster in helping those people that we are saying today we are helping them. isn't that wonderful? that is our job. we are not doing anybody any favors. that is why we were sent here. try it once in a while, democracy. you may like it. >> the gentleman from new jersey mr. garrett. >> at this point i yield two minutes to the gentleman it realize it is not just what we do on the floor but the volunteering and dedication to help these people. >> i want to thank the chairman for recognizing me and i just want to say that i support this bill not because i support the increased borrowing that we're doing for our flood insurance program of $9.7 billion, but it is a contractual agreement that we owe to these policyholders to pay these claims.

it is not their fault that we in the government do not, are not good managers of our money. in 1968 when this policy and this program feels put into place -- was put into place it had a borrowing authority of $1.5 billion. it was not until katrina that we raised that borrowing authority to $20 billion. managers of our money. in 1968 when this policy and this program feels put into place -- was put into place it had a borrowing authority of $1.5 billion. it was not until katrina that we raised that borrowing authority to $20 billion. we still owe $20 billion. we are now raising the borrowing authority to $30 billion. in 2017, which is 4 1/2 years away, the borrowing authority goes back to $1.5 billion. i'm sure we will address that at 11:59 on september 30 of 2017. i would like to ask on both sides of the aisle let's start working on that now.

this cost to the government is the $1,763 for every policyholder that has flood insurance. the average premium is about $600. we have paid people 10 and 20 and 30 times for claims that lived in the same house in the same flood plain. i had an amendment to the flood insurance bill that said if you had that claims due to floods and you did not take the payout then you would have to pay a rate based premium. it didn't pass. we've got to get into reality what this flood insurance program is for. it is mandatory. if you have a government backed honor and you live in a flood plain that is likely to flood in 100 years you have to have the insurance. but we need to make sure -- >> i yield to the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. >> we need to make sure what we are doing is something that can manage itself and us not

continually having to raise the borrowing authority. with that i do support the bill and it is an obligation we have to the policyholders and i ask everyone support it. >> the gentleman from new york. >> at this time i would like to bring up the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. >> for how much time? >> for one minute. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized one minute. >> i thank my friend from new york and rise in strong support of this legislation but i must say tuesday night when i found out we were not taking this legislation up in the previous congress was the angriest i have been since i have been a member of congress. in the last 20 years this is the longest people affected by natural disasters have waited for congress to provide relief. it is not acceptable. i voted for aid for all areas of the country wherever there's

been a natural disaster and the northeast deserves the same. new york has been a donor state and we give more to the federal government than we take back. now we need help and politics shouldn't be played with the help we need. we should be supporting the entire package. i'm sorry we are not voting for the entire panel today. we now have to wait for the senate to pass whatever we pass. this could have been gone and done on tuesday night and the aid would have been speeding to the people. this is not acceptable and i hope that there's no further delay. my sits are suffering. -- my constituents are suffering. the people of new york, new jersey and new york are suffering. congress needs to get out of the way and send not only this $9.7 billion insurance but the entire package. i yield become.

>> the gentleman from new jersey. >> just to set the record straight with regard to the legislation before us a flood insurance program the aid under this program is going and has been going to the recipients in the effected area because there was funding in this program before. what we are doing now is make sure that aid will continue to go to those people who have contracts for insurance. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york who also is very familiar with the devastation. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the legislation. as intimated in the summer of 2011 my district was struck by hurricanes. we came together to support my constituents. with that assistance we are in the process of rebuilding. now we come together in the wake of this devastating natural disaster and my state with our neighboring states were struck again.

making certain that our communities have the resources has brought me here to advocate for new york families, businesses and farms. today's vote is a step forward. the national flood insurance program exists for circumstances like this. but more remains. we must come together at the outset of this session to address both the immediate recovery needs and longer-term rebuilding efforts. i'm committed to this effort. i'm produce of the bipartisan work we have achieved. we need to continue that. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey and i urge my colleagues to support it. >> can the clerk identify the time remaining? >> the gentleman from new jersey has 4:45 and the gentleman from new york has 6:45. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey. >> without objection.

>> first of all, it's 15 seconds. just to the set the record straight.we have heard about the january 15 vote that is coming on the rest of the plan. i do not think we should hold out also that. i'm certain we will vote on january 15. the constitution says the other body has to vote as well. they need to start all over again and the resident has to sign the bill. it is my strong hope that the leadership tree now and january 15 vote reach out to the

leadership to the other body and try to pre-negotiate a bill that the senate would quickly and expeditiously take up to solve this problem. house taking up a vote on january 15 is meaningless if the other body does not act. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle man from new jersey. >> i would like to yield two minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. today we're doing the important thing, the critical thing. i wish today this has been what we'd voted on in the previous session, to recharge the flood insurance that needs to be there so that men and women in connecticut, new jersey, new york and the like will not question whether or not their country can provide them with

the resources that are expected to be there in the time of a national disaster like that. but madam speaker, i rise to say that january 15 is critical and as the previous speaker said, we do need to prenegotiate with the senate. we need to get the pork out. now, none of that pork we're talking about is in new york, new jersey or connecticut. in fact, it's as far away as alaska. the bill that we will not vote on today, i'm speaking -- the pork that we will not vote on today is, in fact, the pork that was in this bill from the senate and my hope is that we will see january 15 a negotiated, clean bill that only deals with the men and women and families on the eastern seaboard that need to be taken care of. i think it is our responsibility to make the supplementals only about the emergency. for people on the eastern seaboard that are suffering,

time is running out and all of our leader need to make sure the next vote, the vote on january 15, as the previous speaker said, will be a vote that in fact will be prenegotiated that will run through the senate and that in fact will deal only with the people suffering on the eastern seaboard. i yield to the gentleman. >> thank you to the gentleman for yielding. it's important to point out that the house bill never contained any of those extraneous provisions. when the bill came over here, our leadership, we agreed to all that was taken out so there was nothing about any other state other than those directly affected by sandy. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman is absolutely right. had we been able to pass what we intended to be the house bill and pass it back to the senate and the senate then would have taken that up though they had left town we could have done this in the previous congress and the gentleman from new york has been a champion to make sure that's clearly understood. i want to be an equal champion

that in fact whether it's louisiana or california when the next earthquake occurs or our friends and colleagues from the eastern seaboard, as far south as where we stand, we need to make sure, we owe them that, and i want to thank the gentleman from new york for working so hard to make sure that we do get to a clean bill and with that i thank the gentleman and yield back. >> time has expired. gentleman from new york? >> i yield to ms. canner for unanimous consent request. >> i ask to place remarks in the record in support of hurricane sandy relief wherever it is needed in our nation. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york on the judiciary committee. >> gentleman from new york is recognized one minute. >> thank you. i obviously support this bill today to replenish the hurricane insurance fund which would otherwise run dry for the entire

country next week but it does not excuse the callous action of the house leadership the other night in taking the $60 billion of relief off the table. now we're told we'll get a vote on the 15th and i hope they're as good as their word although they haven't been in the past but even so it will take god knows how long for the senate because the bill they passed is dead, this being a new congress. that action the other night delayed relief for the long suffering people, the business owners whose businesses are going under, the homeowners who are suffering from mold, all of this was delayed by at least three weeks, maybe longer on top of the fact that we had gone already nine weeks after katrina was 10 days, nine weeks of lack of aid, now another three or four or five, this is the most callous action i have ever seen. the leadership should be condemned for it. i hope they have the

determination to make sure this comes to a vote on the 15, that it passes, and that the senate is induced to match it quickly. that would be the least that decency would demand. >> gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from new jersey. >> recognizing some on other side of the aisle can't take yes for an answer, i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman reserved. gentleman from new york? >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> as i sit here, i was thinking maybe there is a bias against the northern, eastern states of this country. this devastation can happen to any state and no one state has the money to make sure those people that were injured in this storm can move forward and i will remind all those members that are not here supporting this bill that that could happen to your state. you know, as i sat here and supported alabama, i supported mississippi, i supported texas, i was hoping that by now the

northeast part of this country would have -- congress would have acted. it's been 77 days. those people are hurting. people in my district still can't get back to their homes and here we are in the last congress we just didn't do anything about it. now we're moving forward and hopefully january 15 we can get the rest of the money so those people that are suffering from all these states hit by this storm can get their lives back together again and i thank you, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve? >> i yield one minute for his floor debate, the gentleman from new york, sean patrick maloney. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, my name is sean patrick maloney. i'm new here. i don't know all the rules of

washington but it seems like the rule here is to put off till tomorrow what should be done today even when our fellow americans are suffering. a long time ago i honored from my mom and dad, jim and joan maloney, and father bill nolan, a much better rule, the golden rule, americans by all parties live by it, the people of new york, new jersey and hudson valley live by it. bart and diana tyler of kellogg's hardware store in catona live by it. they lent critical supplies in the hour of maximum need and consoled them. they didn't make their neighbors wait 68 days for help. they didn't say they could do more later. they acted with speed and with caring. this new congress can start a new today. we can act with speed and caring.

we don't need to wait. i urge my colleagues to bring this additional relief to the floor as soon as possible and support the bill today. i yield back my time. >> gentleman's time's expired. >> continue to reserve. how much time do i have remaining? >> 2.25 minutes remaining. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman lady from texas. >> i thank the gentleman very much and i thank the proponent of this legislation. it is obviously needed. i come from the gulf region. we lost thousands and thousands and thousands through hurricanes hurricane ike saw this congress give us their 3 billion. i stand here today to remind you that a police officer died, a 13-year-old died with debris falling on her and a mother saw two children drawn from her hand and drown in hurricane sandy. it is long overdue. i stand here as someone who has been a beneficiary, who size cried with those who have lost,

demand this money be passed today but more importantly i demand we pass the total amount of money today. let's help the american people. let's help those impacted by sandy and my fellow americans. >> time has expired. does the gentleman from new jersey wish to continue reserving? >> yes. >> gentleman from new york? >> reserve. >> gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from new york have additional speakers? >> i have one additional speaker. >> gentleman from new jersey? >> i have no additional speakers. >> gentleman from new jersey has the right to close. >> i give one minute to the honorable maxine waters. >> thank you very much. i am so proud of the members of this congress from both sides of the aisle who have been real advocates, who have been on television, who have been fighting, members on the opposite side of the aisle

criticize their own leadership for the delay. ladies and gentlemen, i am from california. i have witnessed earthquake disaster. i have been involved with trying to help with katrina and making sure that the people who were the victims of katrina were compensated, were taken care of. this is unconscionable that this has had to take so long. i watch congressman meek up in rockaway, i watched the people who cried, i watched the people who begged for help, who begged for assistance. this is so late in coming so i support this bill today. i am one of the co-authors of the flood insurance reauthorization bill along with ms. biggert who reauthorized flood insurance for another five years. let's put the money in it, let's do what's right, let's take care of the disaster. >> gentleman woman's time is expired. mr. meeks has 1.75 minutes remaining and the gentleman from new jersey has 2.25 minutes

remaining. >> i yield myself the remaining time. >> gentleman's recognized. >> it's 70 days, unprecedented that this region has not been treated like the other regions when they were in need of help. it's 70 days. we're going this bill today and what we're receiving is a promissory note, a promissory note that on january 15 we'll be able to say to the people from new jersey, new york and connecticut that were victimized by this storm that their house of representatives are going to be by their side so we have a promissory note. i'm concerned until the promissory note has been put into the bank and stamped that it has sufficient funds and in this case it's got to be put in the bank and stamped that we have the votes that are necessary for the people of this region.

they've been suffering. they have suffered long enough. they need to hear from their government that their government is with them just as it has been with everybody else in this country. i, for one, wherever the disaster may be, want to say that we've got to support them. i say to this congress, let's make sure as we put forward this promissory note because we cannot go back home. i don't think a democrat or a republican can go back home after january 15 and say that the promissory check has bounced of insufficient funds. we have to come back collectively and say to the people that are suffering that they in fact have been helped by their government by their people and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 2.25 minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and thank all those who have come to the floor to address this situation.

for those of us who live in the affected area, our heart goes out to the families, the moms, the dads, the little children, the senior citizen who is have lost everything -- homes that have been inundated with water so it's non-recognizable anymore, homes that have to be totally knocked down or homes that have to be totally refurbished, stripped down to their studs again and started from the foundation back up again to build them, homes that have been washed ashore or washed out to sea and never seen again, homes destroyed, trees that have crashed through homes, electricity out for weeks. our heart goes out to the people who have suffered so much and for so long and who continue to suffer and i commend members on both sides of the aisle coming to the floor today to support this legislation. i thank also those people, the volunteers, who took it upon themselves without any government mandate or edict or pay or what have you to rescue these people and work for these people day in and day out, from the very beginning, the o.e.m.

people, the management people, the fire department, the rescue squad and rank and file folks who came out and tried to help and continue to do so to run the food banks, groups like smart an purse to be on the front lines and support these people in their hour of need and i extend an invitation to every single member of congress who has come to the floor and said they, too, support these people, to put on their work shoes and work boots and jackets and get out of this congress and get out of this city and to go into the affected area and not just give speeches and not just pass legislation of other people's money but to actually come to our state and to join us and to in the field and do the work necessary to get done so i extend that invitation to each and every one and look forward to hearing from each and every one of you and ask for your support of this legislation and extend an invitation to ms. waters to work furthermore on

the legislation of flood insurance. this is a nonsustainable program. we're taking in 75 cents and paying out a buck in claims. that can't go on. we need to work together on this and i look forward to that and look for a yes vote on the legislation and i yield back.>> the bill approved by the house is the first up an -- of an aid package. the bill will be brought about for a vote on january 15. after that, new york senators schumer spoke to reporters about hurricane sandy flood relief. >> good afternoon. let me say a few things first.

we're glad the house and senate acted and provided another $9.7 billion to the national flood insurance program. without this program, we would have run out of money leaving over 100,000 sandy victims in the lurch. i would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the house and senate for making this an easy passage. we hope and pray the next bill will be similar. we do not expect it to be the same. we are worried. it is good news the house passed the bill. we have visited people depending on flood insurance to help rebuild. flood insurance pays about

$250,000 in limits. for most of the homes hurt industry, it pays either the bulk or completely for the damage. some of the destroyed homes will be worth more. that is good. the bad news is we have to go through this dog and pony show in the first place. last month, the senate passed a good bill to help all of the victims of hurricane sandy. the house could have taken it up and passed it. that is what it should have done. they promised to vote on a similar version before the last congress ended. unfortunately, this changed at the last moment. we do not need to get into why, but we do not want it to happen again. to be a bride left at the altar once is bad enough. to be left at the altar twice would be unconscionable.

we need the house to move forward and pass the full $60 billion. we also need them not to put language in the bill that would make it more difficult for homeowners, small businesses, and localities to get the aid. we will have to examine their language carefully to make sure is not one step forward, two steps back. let me say this. the $9 billion is a good thing. there is no question about it. it is a good but small first step. the flood insurance relief is a small down payment on the much larger amount of aid we need to get through congress. the job has hardly begun. we must make sure passing this bill is not the end or even the middle. it is only a start.

here is who has not helped in the bill. hundreds of thousands of homeowners who do not have flood insurance who lost their homes or suffered major damage. they cannot sign contracts for repairs until the contractor or the bank making a construction loan knows that there is money to reimburse them. right now, they know nothing of the sort. the money is not there. the cdbg account is dry. there is no money even with the passage of this measure for small businesses ready to go under, small businesses hanging on their fingernails because they have been out of business for three or four months. not only do they not have the wherewithal to repair their businesses, they have not had any income because their businesses are not functioning. we need help there.

this does not help to rebuild the shoreline so we are not naked to the next storm. there is no money in this program for that. there is no help for all of the localities that have laid out billions of dollars. if they are not reimbursed as they always have been, taxes will skyrocket in the new york and new jersey area. this bill is a small first step, but it hardly gets at what we need. our governor has requested $80 billion. the administration approved $60. the senate passed the $60 billion. that was good news. that was a good, large step forward. we are waiting for the house. then we will have to get to work in the senate.

the ideal situation would be for the house to pass the same bill we passed in the senate. we almost unanimous consent on the floor. if they make changes, harry reid has promised it will be the first thing we take up when we get back. we will not rest until the full $60 billion is sent to new york and new jersey to provide the relief our homeowners and businesses need. >> thank you for your steadfast leadership fighting for the families in new york and new jersey are desperately need this money. it has been a tough holiday season in new york. families are wondering how we can begin to rebuild. so much of what is available does not cover everything. fema covers $30,000, a little more.

this flood insurance is vital for those who have the flood insurance. relatively few families have that. we need the rest of the money to begin to rebuild homes. we need the money for our roads and bridges and sewer systems and infrastructure. we need that money to flow for the cities to rebuild. we need to make sure businesses have the money to begin to rebuild what has been lost. that is what the families are waiting for. they look to us in washington to come together and get the work done. can we find the common values to offer some amount of help at a time it is so desperately needed? i was very grateful to house passed the first $9 billion. it makes a difference. we were able to do it unanimously. but this is just a small first step in the direction of meeting the real needs.

new york has always stood by every other region of the country when they have undergone natural disasters. this is a moment when we desperately need other states, senators, and members of the house to stand by new yorkers. it is a time of great need. families are still not in their homes. children are not in their schools. we want to make sure they can rebuild their homes and be back in their communities. that is what we need this money for. i am eager to work hard on the next package. we need to have a package out of the house that mirrors what we passed in the senate. we will work night and day to make sure the needs are being met. >> we are ready for your questions. >> on your concerns about what is in the house bill, can you talk about that specifically? >> we want to work with them. there are some provisions that are different from the senate bill and make it harder for

funding. there are others as well. those are the two that stand out. >> there are relatively small amounts of money in the senate bill that caused controversy. why is it important to keep those in? >> we have had a tradition of dealing with disasters that have not been paid for. there are parts of irene that have not been paid for. there are parts of the tornadoes in missouri that have not been paid for. we have done what the senate has traditionally done. the house has moved to take out some of those. we will see what happens. the bottom line is none of this is extraneous to disasters. if the house wants to take it out, we will have to deal with that in the senate. it will make some people not

happy. it may make it harder to pass. we've gotten the support from our senate members on both sides of the aisle to help the people of hurricane sandy that i think we could overcome it. >> some of the language was opening up vehicles for other states to apply for money. allowing other states to apply for that fema money. that is what makes a difference. we have not had an opportunity to give relief to other states. to broaden what we ask for allows others to make applications to the federal government. that was a sense of fairness. >> there are some that use things as excuses. some people have said there is pork in this bill. there are no non-disaster related things in the bill. omb scrubbed it to make sure that does not happen. there are some that say we should not do mitigation.

that is why they do not want to vote for the bill. we have always done litigation when it comes to disaster. it makes no sense to rebuild a building in a flood plain the same way. we cannot tell people to move a mile up the hill. we are too densely populated. if you tell a lot of our localities they have to pay 35% of the damage, they will never rebuild. the same thing with homeowners and small businesses that have lost everything. i think there has generally been good will on both sides of the aisle and in both houses to help us. there are some that will use things as excuses. we have started doing it in the hopes to get the best bill the house and senate can pass as quickly as possible.

>> do you have any thoughts about why paul ryan voting against this? >> flood insurance is an obligation of the federal government. they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in premiums, and the government says if you are flooded we will reimburse you. i do not understand why anyone would not want to vote for that. i have not heard congressman ryan's reasoning. [indiscernible] that is terribly harsh to a homeowner who has lost their home. should they sit around and wait for two years until we reform the program?

there is nothing wrong with reforming the program. we have made efforts to do that. the homeowners who needs this money and had paid in for this money, held as hostage to reform? that is unconscionable, wrong. i would hope congressman ryan would reconsider. >> why are you still working to get the other billions out? what was your understanding? >> there was a huge problem with speaker boehner pulling the bill. now there is a much better attitude on both sides. it was always good on the democratic side. we will have to work things out in the next few days to see if that can create the kind of bill

we need. >> and there seems to be a renewed commitment. this is something we will come together to do. >> we are -- i am -- we are more optimistic today because i think that people realize that playing games with this money was broadly unpopular in every part of the country and with every political stripe. >> i want to switch gears for a minute -- >> let's stay with sandy. >> do you agree with republicans that said the program needs to be privatized? >> i am not for privatization of flood insurance. there are not enough insurers who would ensure homes at rates that any person could afford. it did not come from a big push

from the northeast. the flood insurance came from a big push from florida and the carolinas and the gulf states. the reason there is flood insurance is the private sector would not handle it. >> do you have any idea in terms of claims and time? >> fema will be pretty quick. over $3 billion has been distributed already to individuals and governments. not in terms of the amount of damage, but fema has been quick in its distribution. the law limits what it can do. i was in long beach, a community of 35,000 people, and the average home experienced more than $100,000 of damage. if you lost your bottom floor, electric system, boiler, it is hard to rebuild that home and

make a better with mitigation for $31,900. the money that would go to homeowners and business, they do not have any money. their cupboard is bare. >> does that affect your plans for pursuing a tax relief bill? >> no, we have always had tax relief bills after major storms. irene, a similar one we put in as sandy, that still has not passed. that still is part of the next tax measure.

we can now go to the subject. >> can you talk about your plans for gun-control background checks? >> several of us are working with vice president biden on some reasonable measures. we want to preserve the constitution, the second amendment, but we want to protect our families. there are reasonable reforms, and limiting the military-style weapons, limiting the rounds. common-sense reforms, we do not have a set of laws that prevent people from bringing weapons from one state to another state. it is a huge problem in our state, and those are the kinds of things we can work together, also on mental-health issues. i'm hopeful with senator schumer's leadership we can come together and create a reasonable agenda.

>> there are a lot of senators with proposals to pursue. many are related to guns, mental illness, violence, the general violence in video games, television, and our society. we're working with the white house. we have been talking among members, and you will see a package of proposals emerging when we come back into session. >> are you talking about gun shows? >> we all have our own views. senator gillibrand and i have introduced specifics bills on these issues, but it is important to figure out the right package. it will be something that i

think deals with the problem, but is respectful of second- amendment rights. that is the only way to go. >> there were concerns raised on the house floor when the senate could get to this bill, because you have a filibuster reform. >> leader reid said it will be the first order of business, and it is my hope we get the whole thing down on the president's desk by the end of this month. >> you are on the finance committee. what proposal do you favor to raise revenue to tax reform for deficit reduction? >> we just passed a major bill. we will discuss the various things available.

>> which of the proposed filibuster reforms would you support? >> we have to do something. the senate is broken. if we cannot come to a bipartisan agreement, we have to get 51 votes for some kind of change. that is easier said than done. i think there is a consensus on the democratic side we have to do something. i would like to go as far as we can with something that passes, and that is what we are trying to work on. i believe we need real change. this is the last one. >> your response to senator cornyn's op-ed? >> i have not read my copy of "the houston chronicle" yet. i think risking government shutdown, risking not raising

the debt ceiling, is playing with fire, and it is my strong recommendation to my caucus, to the house democratic caucus, and to the president that we make it clear, not in the middle of february, but from next week on that we are not going to do that. if anyone wants to come in and negotiate and says we will do this only -- we will raise the debt ceiling only if you do a, b, c, they will not have a good negotiating partner. i would bet that they not go forward with that. if they are convinced -- those who want to use the debt ceiling as a tool to bring change that they want, if they realize for sure that they are not going to have a negotiating partner, they will have to find another route to bring their change.

the only way they get leverage is when they think we might negotiate on this issue. it was very sad that in 2011 when that happened, and i think there's a strong consensus not to repeat what i would call -- what most of us would regard as a mistake. ok, thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow on "washington journal" a senior editor of strength of sap the car sales in the u.s. -- talks about the strength of car sales in the u.s. stephen ellis talks about

hurricane sandy. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, they looked horrible college votes for president is announced in congress. then conversations with senator john hoven and angus king. >> the big discussion i remember was what richard nixon was going to do. >> this is like a time bomb. it is a disaster for all of us. >> he said, the president's council has brought me a list of names of people. he wants a full-scale investigation of them. >> it was shortly after the farewell speech that the chief

of staff called me. he said, david, we forgot one thing. we forgot the resignation. i would be glad to read it. you do not get it. you need to write it. >> the players, he people -- key people to tell that story themselves. the best weight to do this was to start a video focus that involves nixon players and players in the watergate drama on the left and the right and have them tell the story and use portions of that story in the museum to let visitors understand the complexity of the constitutional drama. >> the former head of the presidential nixon a library details the library oral history

project. sunday night at 8 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." >> a tally of the l.a. tour college vote has reaffirmed obama's the election -- a tally college voteoraoaral has reaffirmed obama's re-ele ction. final count -- for obama, 332 and four romney, 206. -- for romney, 206.

>> the house will be in order. take your seats. >> mr. speaker, the vice president and the united states senate. [applause]

>> mr. speaker, members of congress, pursuant to the law

of the united states, the senate and house of representatives are meeting in a joint session to verify the certificate and counsel the boat of several states -- vote of the states. the certificates are authentic and correct in form. they will make a list of the v otes from the states. the tellers will take their place at the clerk's desk. the tellers will dispense by

reading formal readings of the certificates. after confirming the certificates are authentic, begin with each state beginning with alabama. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of alabama seems to be authentic and it appears that mr. romney received nine votes for president and paul ryan received nine votes or vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of

alaska seems to be authentic. it appears that mr. romney received three votes for president and paul ryan received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of arizona appears to be authentic. mr. romney received 11 votes for president and paul ryan received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of arkansas seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that make romney

received six votes for president and paul ryan received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, their certificate of the state of california seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received 55 votes for president and joe biden received 55 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of colorado seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received nine votes for president and joe biden received nine votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, the certificate of the state of connecticut seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama of the state of illinois received seven votes for president and joseph biden received seven votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of delaware seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received three votes for president and joseph biden received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of the district of columbia seems to be

regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received three votes for president and joseph biden received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, certificate of the state of florida seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received 29 votes for president and joseph biden received 29 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of georgia seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mr. romney received 16 votes for vice president and paul ryan received 16 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the

certificate of the state of hawaii seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received four votes for president and joseph biden received four votes for vice president. >> mr. president, their certificate of the state of idaho seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received four votes for president and all ryan received four votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of illinois seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received 20 votes for president and joseph biden received 20 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the

certificate of the state of indiana seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 11 votes for president and paul ryan received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of iowa seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received six votes for president and joseph biden received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of kansas seems regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received six votes for president and paul ryan received six votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, the certificate of the commonwealth of kentucky seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 8 votes for president and paul ryan received 8 votes or vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of louisiana seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 8 votes for president and paul ryan received 8 votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, a certificate of electoral vote for the state of maryland seems to be regular in the form and authentic. it appears therefrom at barack obama of the state of illinois received 10 votes for president and vice-president joe biden received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote for the commonwealth of massachusetts seems to be regular in form and authentic. it appears there from that barack obama received 11 votes for president and joseph biden received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, a certificate of electoral vote of the state of michigan seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of the

state of illinois received 16 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 16 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, visit -- the certificate of the state of minnesota seems to be regular in corn and up and neck, and it appears that barack obama and the state of illinois received 10 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, a certificate of electoral vote of the state of mississippi seems to be regular in for an authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of the commonwealth of massachusetts received six votes per president and paul ryan of wisconsin received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, a certificate of the electoral vote of the state of missouri seems to be regular in for an authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of

massachusetts received 10 votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of montana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received three votes for vice -- for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of nebraska seems to be regular in for an authentic, and it appears therefrom at mitt romney of massachusetts received five votes for president and paul ryan of the state of wisconsin received five votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of electoral vote of the state of nevada seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received six votes

for president and joseph biden of delaware received six votes for vice-president. >> mr. president, another set of the electoral vote of the state of new hampshire seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received four votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received a lot of votes for vice president. >> the certificate of the electoral vote of new jersey seems to be regular in farm and authentic, and it appears there from the barack obama of illinois received 14 votes for president and joseph biden received 14 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, a certificate of electoral votes of at the state of new mexico seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received five votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received five votes

for vice president. >> mr. president, other certificate of the electoral vote of the great state of new york seems to be regular in for an authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received 29 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 29 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, -- the certificate of the state of north carolina seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received 15 votes for president and a paul ryan of wisconsin received 15 votes per byte -- for vice- president. >> mr. president, other certificate of electoral vote of the state of north dakota seems to be regular and the form and authentic, and it appears that

mitt romney of massachusetts received three votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, others a thicket of electoral vote and the state of ohio 63 regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received 18 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 18 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, other certificate of the electoral vote of the state of oklahoma seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of the commonwealth of massachusetts received seven votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received seven votes for vice president. >> mr. president, other certificate of the electoral vote of the state of oregon seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois

received seven votes for president and joseph biden of the state of delaware received seven votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the commonwealth of pennsylvania seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of the state of illinois received 20 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 20 votes for vice-president. >> mr. president, other certificate of the electoral vote of the state of rhode island seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received four votes to present and joseph biden of delaware received clot for votes for vice president. -- four votes for vice president. >> this degette of the vote of south carolina seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts and received nine votes for president and

paul ryan of wisconsin received nine votes for vice president. >> mr. president, other certificate of the electoral vote of the state of south dakota seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received three votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the great state of tennessee seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears there from that of my row of the commonwealth of massachusetts received 11 votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, other certificate of electoral vote of the state of texas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received a 38

votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received 38 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, and received a packet of electoral vote of the state of utah seems to be regular in form and order, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received six votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, august ticket of the electoral vote of the state of vermont seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received three votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received three votes for vice president. mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the commonwealth of virginia seems to be regular and reform and authentic, and it appears there from that barack obama of the state of illinois received 13 votes for president and joseph

biden of delaware received 13 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, their certificate of electoral vote of the state of washington seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received 12 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 12 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of west virginia seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received by a vote for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received five votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of electoral vote of the state of wisconsin at seems to be reg'lar in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received 10 votes for president

and joseph biden of delaware received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, there's the degette of the electoral vote of the state of wyoming seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received three votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received three votes for vice president. >> members of congress, the certificates having been read we will deliver the results to the president of the senate. -- having been read, we will deliver the results to the president of the senate. >> lamar alexander of tennessee, tellers on the part of the senate, candidates miller of michigan and brady and pennsylvania, tellers on the part of the house of representatives, report the following as a result of the

ascertained and counting of the electoral vote for president and vice president of united states for the term beginning on the 20th of january, 2013 -- >> the state of the vote of president of the united states is as follows -- the whole number of electors appointed is 538, of which a majority is 270. barack obama of the state of illinois has received for president of the united states 332 votes, mitt romney of the state of massachusetts has received 206 votes. the state of the vote for president of united states is delivered to the president of the senate -- the whole number of electors appointed to vote for the vice president of the united states is 538, and a majority of which is 270. joseph biden of the state of delaware has received for vice- president of the united states 332 votes. paul ryan of the state of

wisconsin has received 206 votes. this announcement of the state of the vote by the president of the senate shall redeem a sufficient declaration of the person selected president and vice-president of the united states, each for the term beginning on the 20th day of january, 2013, and shall be entered together with a list of votes in the journal of the senate and of the house of representatives. the joint session having been concluded pursuant to the senate joint resolution, the chair declares the joint session dissolved. [applause]

>> >>, conversations with senator john hoeven and maine senator in the skin. after that, william hague will talk about his government's policy on exporting weapons. michigan senator debbie stabenow, chairman of agriculture committee -- she talks about what is next on the farm bill after a small part was passed as part of the fiscal cliff package. at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on sunday on c-span.

>> if i did not have my case coming up, i would like to come back so that we could really play the law down and what is going on in this country. i wish i was not on trial and got this case. i would like to talk to united states of america about what is going on. >> raiment, his family goes back. he settles here in rhode island. he worked his way up, first doing low-level kind of crime, but eventually he became a crime course of new england. his headquarters in providence, rhode island. sometimes people think michelle obama guys -- mob guys are bad -- not true all. they are very intelligent. they pulled some scams on wall street that would make bernie

like child's play. this was protecting business from other guys who might try to take down. their repertoire grew and grew as a result of their crime to protect their way of doing things. >> more from road island across state capital, as "book tv" looks behind the scenes of history and literary life of providence. >> in our conversation with republican senator joe hoeven of north dakota. this is about 45 minutes. >> we want to welcome back senator john hoeven the republican of north dakota. the former governor of the state.

as you begin 113th congress, will it be different from the last one? guest: we face real challenge and we need to have bipartisan solution to address. we're working on the debt ceiling right now and we've got to find ways to address the deficit and debt and reduce spending. that means coming together in a bipartisan way with real solutions for the american people. host: let me dig down deeper in that. in an editorial he posted yesterday, republican leader mitch mcconnell said we need to avoid these 11th hour fights? how do you get to bipartisanship with your democratic colleagues? -- guest: it is a challenge. i hope that the work we went through on the fiscal cliff, going to that deadline, demonstrated to everybody in the house and senate as well as the administration that look, that's not the way to do business. let's get after it and get it

done and let's get it done before the deadline. we're already working on it but the key is, people are going to have to recognize that it takes bipartisanship but it also takes real solutions. we have got to find ways to reduce our spending and reform entitlement. we also need progrowth tax reform as well. we need those things and we have -- each side has to give to get a real solution. host: the house and president said this last week, he's not going to be part of this fight. you guys congress racked up these bills. it's up to you to figure out a way to pay for them. guest: he is responsible as president is to lead. that means working with congress on real solution and coming up agreement on debt ceiling is a huge part of that and it goes exactly what we have to do. if you look at simpson-bowls and ideas to address our debt and get our economy back on

track, it involves not only progrowth tax reform but it also involves entitlement reform and balancing budget and controlling spending. all of those things go into addressing the debt limit the right way. the president has to be a big part working on that. host: has he been a leader? is the president is leader? guest: he needs to be more engaged and he needs to work with congress in a very hope way and he has to tell not only congress but the people of this great country exactly what he believes the right plan is to reduce spending, to reform entitlements and to join us and put those things in place. host: let me go back to what senator mcconnell said and put specifics to these words. he said, we simply cannot increase the nation's borrowing limit without committing to long overdue reforms to spending programs that are the very cause of our debt. guest: i think that's what i

said. host: what programs. where do you cut? guest: let me give you an example. i'm on the agricultural committee. in the senate we passed a farm bill that provides more than $20 billion in reductions at the same time we put a new five year farm bill with better insurance in place. a similar plan passed the house ag committee but the full plan did not get through the house. that's one example where we're improving the farm policy and at the same time finding savings. the other thing is when you put a five year plan in place, you create certainty. that certainty stimulates investment and investment stimulates economic growth. that not only putting people back to work but growing economy, economic growth creates real revenue to address our deficit. host: should there be means testing on social security? guest: i think we're going to have to look at a number of things in terms of the entitlement programs including

means testing. when you talk about means testing, you probably going to have to look at medicare. for upper income people, we are going to have to do some means testing in medicare. in social security, what we've talked about -- even the president come forward on this -- which is good, that's looking at chained c.p.i. looking at the index. we have to do it in a way with we make sure we protect current recipients, particularly low income. i think that's one of the kind of bipartisan reform that we're working on for social security. i think for means testing, that's where looking at something along those lines for medicare. host: should tax loopholes to be changed or adjusted for large corporations? guest: sure we need tax reform. one thing that we did do addressing the fiscal cliff and obviously much more needs to be done, we did make the lower tax rates permanent.

that permanency is important to create certainty to get economic growth and get business investment. yes, we do need to address the deductions and closing loopholes. but we have to keep our rates down. it can't be just raising taxes. it's about making simpler fairer tax code that stimulates business growth. host: when you talk to your constituents what's the number one question you get about washington and the politics in this town? guest: why can't you guys get together and do what i said. have a big plan and put it in place that does all of these things. progrowth tax reform, entitlement reform and reducing spending, balancing the budget so that we get on a long term trajectory for growth and job creation and make sure we're strong. host: you can joining us on facebook or twitter. you can send us an e-mail or

give us a phone call. senator hoeven, why is it so hard to get to that point? why can't democrats and republicans bridge the divide and reach a compromise? guest: it reflects the debate going on in the country and in between bigger government, higher taxes and more spending versus more limited government. lower taxes and more of growth in the private sector. you see that in the country and that's reflected in the representatives. host: did the election provide any clarity on that? guest: actually the election, we stayed pretty much status quo. you've got a republican majority in the house, you're got a democrat majority in the senate and you've got democratic administration. the democrats controls two- thirds of the government. which is why the president has to step up and provide leadership on these key issue

that's helps the congress bridge this divide, which isn't just in the congress but the people of this country saying, these are different views of how we governor. we've got to come to come together and get the job done. host: you had a lot of interaction with the president? has the republican leadership had close interaction on a personal level with the president? guest: no, we need presidential leadership to join with us. joininget's go to mel us from clay pool, indiana, go ahead please. caller: good morning. i think there's one thing that they could possibly do to help balance the budget and that was -- the whole group everybody including the president, be willing to take a tax cut -- i'm sorry a wage cut.

thet: since i've been in senate, which is now two years, we have reduced the senate pay and the budget from the senate offices. we're going to have to continue to find those kind of savings not only for the senators of congress but across government as we talked about earlier. we've got to find ways to reduce spending. host: let's go to benton, illinois, good morning to you, democrats line. caller: yes. i want to make a comment about the payroll taxes that everybody is having such a fit about paying 6.2 now. yearsremember, i'm 74 old, i can remember paying 13% of payroll taxes for social security, which i'm on and

they're talking about reducing? after i paid this kind of money. i get a little upset about it. another thing i wanted to comment about, this last bill that was paid, i didn't pay too much attention to the pork that was ended until it got to nascar. i'm a nascar fan from several years back but to subsidize nascar for improvement to their racetracks. give me a break. this is the kind of pork that we certainly do not need. these people make so much money, they don't know what to do with it half the time. host: thanks for the call. also related twitter comment from our viewer are you going to reject the pork in the sandy bill that's voted in the house today. guest: she made a couple points. first the payroll tax that you pay, that's the funding of social security so people pay into social security

system which is retirement system and then they have social security when they retire. what happened was, several years ago, as part of the negotiations going back to 2010, that was reduced to 4.2% as part of the effort to stimulate the economy. it's just reverting to the 6.2% that historically has been at and again, that is funding for social security, which obviously we need to keep sound and make sure it's there for the long term. that's not an increase, that's what the rate always been and it just reverted after the two year tax holiday or reduction in the social security payment into the system. the other point about nascar and the fiscal stimulus legislation, in that legislation, there were a number of tax credits which were

extended, and that is a tax credit nascar was able to use. that was existing tax program that rather than allowing it to drop away, it was extended i think -- we have to look at all of those kind of things and figure out where we can save. you and i talked about it earlier. we need tax reform to address those kind of things as well as any pork any of these things. we have to make sure that the work we do is done in an open transparent way so that the things do get funded are things that the american people know about and they feel fair. host: you represent a rural state where hunting is a big part of society and culture. this is from the "new york post" piece -- it is one of the students returning to sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut. a related headline on the front page of "usa today" -- the president saying he wants this to be a top agenda item in the 113th congress.

guest: i think everybody agrees that we have to take a look, and determine what we can do, but it's got to be in a comprehensive, thoughtful way, again going back to building the bipartisan support to actually get something done. that means not just a discussion about guns, but looking at violence in our society. whether the video games, movies, security, what we can do in our schools or other areas, it's got to be done in a thoughtful way with bipartisan support. host: if all that is the on the table and there's an agreement on mental health, would you support any restrictions on the high-powered rifle or magazine clips used in the most recent shootings? guest: i will have to see what the recommendations to solutions are? one of the things senator lieberman and others have talked about is having a commission on violence where you

look at these things in a comprehensive way and do it on a bipartisan basis, so you have a thoughtful dialogue, open and transparent, the public sees what's going on, and the recommendations. host: do you support the nra? are you a member? guest: yes. host: now to the phone. good morning. caller: my question has to do with budgets. the house has sent a budget to the senate. the senate has failed to act on that. they have had no budget of their own. the president presented his budget to the house which was defeated 14-0 with no democratic support. what will it take to get the senate to pass a budget? everybody's talking about deficit control. that all begins with having a budget.

guest: we not only need a budget, we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, which i have always supported. we have to not only get our budget through the senate, which i am pushing to do. the republicans are not the majority, so we have to get to push a balanced budget through the senate as well as the house. but we have to have a balanced budget amendment. host: john hoeven spent 10 years as governor of north dakota. what's the better job? guest: i would say being governor most. of the senators here, who were former governors, will tell you the same king, because you can set an agenda and go after it and you have a lot of control? on how you put that in place and work to get it done. here, it's tougher. however, i came to this job because i believe our country faces real challenges, as we have been discussing, but i

want to be part of the solutions for the american people. i believe in this country and i believe we can do great things. we have to buckle down in a bipartisan way and get this done. it's not easy and does not happen in the short term. it's a long-term proposition, but we have to get it done. that is worth doing. that's why i am here and will continue serving my state. host: you have a new colleague, heidi heitkamp, many republicans thought they would pick up that seat, landed in democratic hands. guest: i have known her many years. we worked together on a range of issues. i will meet twitter again this morning after i leave here. we have had discussions on anything from energy to health care. your husband is a doctor. she's very knowledgeable about health care and has talked with me some ideas i look for to working with her on. i've spoken to her about some things i want to do to stimulate energy in this country. i look forward to welcoming her

to the senate. host: what piece of advice do you have? guest: i want to be careful about giving anyone advice. i would just say we need bipartisanship. i think she and i will work together to be part of the solution on these issues in a bipartisan way. host: this -- guest: i think we need reforms. you and i just talked about them and i have already given a couple specific examples. in medicare, i think we need to look at some means testing for upper-income individuals and we need to look at the indexing. i think we can make these reforms to entitlements in a way where we are not changing them for people who are at or near retirement but for the future recipients. i think you can get support

from republicans and democrats to do it and broad public support, because for seniors at or near retirement, they know the program will not be changed for them, but for younger people they will support the reforms because they know we have to make reforms to save the program and make sure they are there when they retire, when they need medicare. that's how you do at. there are specific examples. host: west palm beach florida, with senator john hoeven of north carolina. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question. i think it's very important that you explain the difference between the debt limit and deficit reduction. they are two separate things. the debt limit is you have to authorize the money to pay for what you have spent.

deficit reduction is what we are going to do going forward. my question is for the senator, they want to change social security to a chained cpi. what other programs, that, raises, what else do they have a theory like this? what state are you from that it's going down? and what is our alternative? guest: no question we have to find reductions in the growth of health care costs. that will take reforms, everything from cutting out fraud, waste, and abuse, to creating a system that incentivizes the right kind of behavior is on the part of consumers. we must find ways to control the growing cost of health care, no question about it. as far as the chained cpi, the idea is you apply that across

all of government for all of these different insulators to have a more realistic assessments of the inflation rate. -- for all these different inflators. as far as the difference between the debt and deficit, the deficit is what creates the debt. each year we have a deficit. in other words, when we spend more than we take in each year, that adds to the debt. we are at the point where the debt ceiling need to be raised. what we did the last time this came up was replaced the budget control act and said that for any $1 increase in the debt limit, we've got to have a $1 deduction in spending, because we've got to get our fiscal house in order. that's what we are talking about as we go into the debt ceiling discussion. any agreement, we have to have real reduction so we get the

deficit under control so we don't continue to increase the debt the debt reduced over time. host: our guest john hoeven is former president and ceo of the bank of north dakota and a graduate of dartmouth and went to northwestern university. on facebook -- guest: i think, again, we've got to get to the point where we are moving the legislation across the floor in a clear, open, transparent manner where it is debated, the public is aware of what is getting funded and what is not getting funded, so there is broad public support for things that have merit and they are funded. and the things that are not, in that debate back and forth, and gets dropped out of the legislation.

we're at the point now where we have to prioritize, because we are spending more than we are taking in. so that's what we are talking about. that's the kind of thing a to do to reduce pork and spending and get the deficit under control. host: this from one of our force -- -- followers -- guest: you've got to come up with a solution that's more comprehensive than just talking about guns in order to get the kind of support we need to move it to congress to get it enacted. host: on the democratic line from phoenix, peggy. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard bob woodward say this morning watching congress is like sitting in a prominent divorce court. they just squabble and squabble and there's no end in sight.

maybe we as citizens have to stop singing can't you all get along, because it does not appear that is possible. another thing, politicians love to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. when we are looking at congress, we cannot help but think congress is a classic example of waste, fraud, and abuse. 33 votes for health care reform that was going nowhere. and all the other abuses in terms of 15 weeks off and things we see that are so infuriating. when it comes to entitlements, i never hear anybody talk about a real savings in terms of medicare would be government- negotiated drug costs. we know that saves an incredible amount. and in social security, and

never hear them talk about moving up the early retirement age. they're always discussing the full retirement age. i know personally that many people who have taken the early retirement and i wonder if that would not be a greater savings. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: i think she's rooting for the kinds of ideas we have to work through in terms of making reforms on a bipartisan basis in order to make sure that these entitlement programs are there for the long run. and so, you put forth a number of concepts that we can work with. i would do it in a way for current recipients. not changing the system. people at or near retirement. but for the younger people, indexing in some cases, means testing some of these things, are the kinds of changes i think can garner not only

bipartisan reform -- or support, but public support, because when i talk to younger people may say we are going to have to make some of those changes to make sure the programs are safe for long term so they are there when the young person needs it. host: there are a number of editorials and opinion pages this morning. here's one from the wall street journal -- is their unity within the

republican caucus in the senate? guest: i believe so. with the debt ceiling, with the continuing resolution which comes up in march, and even with the sequester that has been delayed 60 days, all three of those things offer real opportunities to require savings before we put a new agreement in place. for an increase in the debt ceiling, i believe there is going to have to be a commitment by the administration as well as congress to production before we can have agreement to raise the debt ceiling. host: i could be the entire piece by eugene robinson, but i will share the first sentence. guest: it's clearly critical. i understand that solutions by nature are imperfect. but the reality is we have got

to do these things that we are talking about. we need to do it in a thoughtful, open, transparent way, not. at the last not i think that is what he's referring to. when you do it up against these deadlines, a way to do business. we talked about it earlier. i hope that running into the deadline on the fiscal cliff is something that congress will take into account as we work on the debt ceiling agreement and that we can get it done before the deadline. remember, you have talked about how president obama, speaker boehner will approach these things, we've got to have people talking to each other and we've got to get to solutions before the 11th hour to avoid that. that is absolutely what we can do. host: we agreed to the debt ceiling limit, $16.4 trillion, up in the last hours. guest: the treasury has some

flexibility. the time has come to deal with it. there's no reason to put this off. let's get it done. host: you have a favorite for the next treasury secretary appointed? guest: i don't have names. jackal is a possibility that has been talked about by president obama, a very knowledgeable individual. if that is the president's call, it is an important appointment, so we will look at his choice carefully. i hope it is somebody who can help work through the kind of agreement we need to address the debt ceiling. host: if he is nominated, can you see any hurdles for him being nominated by the senate? guest: i don't want to pre- judge. but he is someone thoughtful and knowledgeable and should be confirmed.

host: hearings could take place within the next few weeks for your colleague john kerry to take over as secretary of state. will he face hurdles in the senate? guest: again, i think that i don't want to pre-judged the process, but i believe he will be approved. it's likely i will support him, but i would like to talk to him first. host: from clayton, north carolina, on the phone with skip. caller: there are few things. first, i don't have any faith in the government at all. i am 53 years old. for 53 years now i have been hearing that we are going to get rid of all the fraud and abuse. 53 years, the same thing.

we're gonna to cut back on spending, 53 years. this congress has done nothing but take in this country and put it in the poorhouse. i don't understand how you can raise taxes when you need money. every time you raise money, -- every time you need money, you raise taxes. my being a household, i have to find ways to cut when you guys do that. i cannot sit there and see you guys taking our money and giving it overseas, like japan. we owe japan money, so we pay them money to pay down the debt, but we also give them money. that makes no sense to me. i would like to know something about all that. guest: i think what we spend overseas whether its foreign aid or even our military overseas, that is something we have to look at and find savings, like the caller is talking about.

as far as addressing waste, fraud, and abuse, that is something that has to be worked on all the time and clearly we have to do a better job of it throughout the government's. i agree with the caller that you cannot be raising taxes to solve the debt and deficit problem. we've got to find savings and we have to do entitlement reform. so i agree with that. in the fiscal cliff agreement, we extended the lower tax rates for 99% of all taxpayers. also, addressed capital gains, dividends, the estate tax, we made them permanent. i believe that will help create economic growth and economic growth will help create revenue to help investment and not higher taxes. on that point, i have a long history of making sure that we work to grow the economy both as a governor and now working on it as a senator, grow the economy to get revenue to address opposite. and you find savings and reforms

to address the deficit and not raising taxes. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. our conversation this friday morning on a washington journal. he sits on the senate agriculture committee. who's the ranking republican? guest: pat cochrane. pat roberts was the ranking member. on our system you can only be committee chairman or ranking member of anyone committee for certain number of years. that's all republicans do it. i don't think the democrats have that limitation. pat has seniority. he actually will become the ranking member on the agriculture committee. we just voted on that yesterday. host: does that change the dynamics? does that change the debate over the farm bill? guest: it may change in a

little. we passed a very good from bill emphasizes crop insurance. i think there are going to have to be some adjustments for some of the southern growers. that may help in terms of figuring out that piece of the equation, which may help us move the bill through the house. we've got a good farm bill to the senate. the house has to pass one. it has to be something that works all regions of the country. certainly, senator robert degree job as ranking member and the senator akaka and brings a lot of great experience and ip will be helpful in making sure we pass it. -- senator cochoran. host: aline is joining us on the phone. caller: what percentage of the entitlement program go to so security, medicare, and public assistance -- social security? i believe public assistance

should have tougher guidelines for people to be able to qualify for these. as a past grocery checkers, i have seen horrible news. i have a solution of a possibility. why can't the money be given to state rest homes or hospitals and then jobs created for the people. they can fold sheets and towels. there are numerous places that the government could step in and say we will give you this money, but we need you to help us with these people. these people have to go to work. if they don't go to work, they don't get paid, just like i did. i was just wondering, we keep hearing, i'm on social security, i worked 32 years and i made some wise choices and i was married to a farmer, so i know where this all comes from.

i also know that we prepared meals that right now people would not consider its a meal. but we made do with what we had. i would just like to know, as an example of the abuse, when a child would come in and buy a 3 cent piece of candy and i would have to give them change, they would walk out and pretty soon, here come the parents to buy a pack of cigarettes. so that is what i would like to know. what percentage of these entitlements -- i feel a little angry when i keep hearing social security, social security. i paid into that all my life. host: thanks for calling from nebraska. guest: i think she's talking about some of the reforms that can and should be made in the snap program, which is the supplemental nutrition

assistance program. i think we can find ways to continue to improve the system in terms of not only how much is spent on food stamps but making sure it is spent in the right way. i think that's what she's referring to. as far as what percentage that is relative to social security, medicare, medicaid, i don't know that off the top of my head. regardless whether it is the food stamp program or snap or any of these, we have to continue to find a way to do a better job. that is part of finding savings throughout all of government spending. host: on twitter -- guest: under the budget control act, we reduced the defense expenditures by $500 billion over the next 10 years. and under the sequester, that calls for another $500 billion deduction.

i don't think that's the way to go. if we need to prioritize and determine where to make those savings rather than doing it across the board. that's why earlier i said for example, looking at foreign aid or the overseas operation costs, orseas basing, we can find savings. host: on the democratic line now, you are next. caller: good morning. i have a few things to say. first, the debt limit. in 2011 when they played with the debt limit, money that republicans had already spent eight years earlier, it cost the american people and other $90 billion in interest because they did not tap it. second, the snap program and social security, what happens is we have americans fighting

americans over carp. the snap program has a card now which the kids cannot go in there and get changed and all of a sudden their mother comes in and buy something else. it's all on the card now. most of that fraud is eradicated. third, social security, even ronald reagan, their choice president's, said that social security should never be on the budgets -- under budget. fourth, president obama has gone over and beyond as a leader trying to work with republicans and john boehner has said he will not talk to the president any more. guest: we were talking earlier about the need for bipartisanship in congress. i made a statement, some of what you see in congress reflects a difference of opinion in the country. that is what you are hearing from some of the callers in terms of how we address these solutions.

so it takes real leadership on the part of the president as well as members of congress to say we understand people have different ideas on how to solve these big challenges, but we've got to find a way to come together. we started out on the debt and deficit. when we passed the budget control act last year we went from just raising the debt ceiling, which is part of how we got into trouble without having a balanced budget agreement, to say no for any $1 increase in raising the debt ceiling, there's got to be a dollar reduction in spending. host: your colleague senator pat toomey in pennsylvania said a partial government shutdown may be necessary in order to send a message that we will not raise the debt limit without spending cuts. guest: i don't want a shutdown, but we have to have real savings and reforms before it can have a debt ceiling debate.

host: and the debate over the filibuster rule is something the senate will be taking up, harry reid setting perform needs to take place. some freshmen members, seven of the nine freshmen democrats say they support changes to the filibuster rule. guest: i think there will be some changes to the filibuster rule. we have been working on it. the majority leader in the senate and the minority leader are negotiating already the changes right now. i think it has to be done in a way where you continue to have a filibuster, but you have some changes that would ensure minority rights are represented in the senate, so you have the kind of policy coming out of the congress that has broad based bipartisan support throughout public. we are talking about addressing these big challenges. we're talking outperforms to entitlement programs. when we talk about tax reform, when we talk about finding real savings to get on top of the debt and deficit, when we talk about a balanced budget amendment, that takes not just our partisanship in the congress but a sense from the whole

public, both republicans and democrats, that we have craft a solution and has broadbased public support to work. host: our next call is anthony from watertown, south dakota, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. this goes back to the farm bill. i wondered why it has not been talked about very much, about legislation being passed for the federal level to step out of the states' rights to either legalize marijuana or to grow it for industrial purposes like ropes and fabrics and paper, to revolutionize it. guest: the reason is the law enforcement agencies, like the

dea, feel they would have a difficult time enforcing the law between marijuana, which is actually smoked, and hemp, a similar plant, but is used for making clothing and materials and that kind of thing. the reason i believe congress has not passed this is because law-enforcement has said they are not able to enforce the law to make sure illegal uses of growing a drug versus growing plant for clothing manufacturer is not something they would able to enforce. asked to be addressed before you have a log place like the caller is referring to. host: bradford, pennsylvania, frank is on the republican line. caller: good morning, senator. i would like to say that we do not have an honest tax system. i like simpson-bowles, but it does not go far enough. i think everything should be

ordinary income. and then allow your deductions per family and a 10% or a cap and everything else is taxed on 3 or 4 different bases. i get all kinds of capital gains. i get royalties from foreign oil companies in the united states. they are here because they don't get those kind of benefits in norway or sweden. i get gas royalties out of ohio from a french company. they get 30% they don't even pay tax on. we have to run a country. i think simpson-bowles is the right direction, but i don't think simpson-bowles goes far enough. at one time i thought steve forbes' idea was great, but he wants to keep a certain piece of money that is an entitlement.

guest: and makes a very good point that we have got to have the kind of pro-growth tax reform that simplifies the system, broadens the base, lower rates, but that stimulates economic growth and economic development. that means not only getting people back to work but it is the growing economy that creates more revenue, not higher taxes. the growth and the revenues from growth is what we really need to address the deposition and debt. often we don't focus on that enough in the scoring, like the cbo, congressional budget office scoring you see all the time, the revenue from growth is not factored in. in anything we put together a, like we just made the lower tax rates permanent for 99% of all taxpayers, the revenue now we will get from economic growth because of that certainty is not factored in. if we get 1%, 2% more economic growth, that is huge, that's trillions in revenue over 10 years to help reduce the debt and deficit.

that's what the caller is getting at. the right kind of tax system that helps stimulate economic growth will cause a big difference in addressing our deficit. host: two items from the news. the latest jobs numbers released a short while ago from the labor department showing the unemployment rate at 7.8%.

[stand by]

>> every opportunity -- >> the equipment from the uk requires an export license. if the gift is above a certain value, they are called in advance. >> i think it will be revisiting this issue. >> i'm sure.

>> coming now to argentina. >> the cake government introduce restrictions -- the uk government introduced restrictions. in terms of eu government and other allies, to encourage them to similar restrictions. there is an inconsistency in the government position. >> i did not think so. our policy was changed in response to argentine actions. we do have a particular interest. that is the united kingdom. we do expect all countries to

take the actions of the argentine government into account. they have to make their own assessment of that. i think the -- trying to persuade to spain, for the sake of argument, i do not know they export relevant equipment addition not export. due in the gillard -- there would be a large argument for no particular benefit. i do not think other u.k. countries regularly adopt this position. so i don't think that would be a very productive use of our time. >> does the department have any figures for the number of u.k. exports being restricted by

this decision? >> there were 37 standard licenses revoked which covered components, but their aircraft, the naval vessels, software from military to medications, equipment. the amounts were very small. less than 2 million pounds in the last year. other ministers regularly agreed. given the change and the position adopted in the 1990's not to have any exports, that was not out of date. that the amounts involved were

very small. >> the defense minister almost immediately following, those given circumstances were in that war, british ships were sunk with french missiles. i find extraordinary the bridge government is not willing we do the british government is not willing to try and persuade other parts of argentina to adopt more restrictive policy, now being followed rightly by the british government. we should not be willing to resort yourself in that way, i find that interesting to request we are in a different situation.

in terms of the capabilities of the argentines. the responsiveness of other countries on this might be limited. we have taken our action because we do not want to contribute in any way ourselves of maintaining their military capabilities. there are compelling reasons why the british to rent -- to adopt a more restrictive arms policy towards argentina. the sources of the information available to you i am sure have very good reasons for the policy.

>> i do not think that would become the general polis security have to direct our diplomatic efforts to where they're most likely to be protected. nor do i think we are anywhere near on the way. >> following the development solution to israel, what action, if any, are you taking? >> we constantly monitor the situation. we have taken account any changes in circumstances. in the recent conflict last month, the british embassy and tel aviv monitor the situation closely and the effect of the

use of israeli defense forces and weaponry. my own conversations with the israeli foreign minister to abide by international human -- humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties -- you had a written answer on this. have a letter to revoke -- unlike anything we have seen in the situation. >> we have no assessment to date whether you can weapons

components were used but we have to remember the circumstances. from statements i've given on the floor of the house, the wider the situation, the immediate and principal cause of the conflict -- with the increased frequency of rocket attacks on southern israel. >> what equipment originated in the u.k.?

>> we have no evidence to date of any opponents in this. that is what happened in previous conflicts. we have not gotten any evidence to date. >> in relation to the situation in the west bank. >> you are aware there are items of equipment to use to build a barrier in the west bank.

you made it very clear. how can there be an assessment about what stage to use? >> that is one of those wider questions. under licenses and the arms export control regime, it is a legitimate issue to raise. i do not want to give -- is the rules on that. >> thank you for coming today. thank you all. i feel confident that our

correspondence with the committees and yourself will continue. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> >>, the electoral college vote results are announced in congress. then hurricane sandy relief funding. then senator schumer and gillibrand will talk about the funding. true that ate people's history is the result of howard synthesizing the work of a great many other historians. what had happened in the 1960's with the counterculture was all new generation of young historians had come up the were in a sense of evaluating all aspects of our past. >> martin on a life of howard is

in -- zinn. >> i like to watch c-span because i can get the news about the goings on in the congress, most of the debates, and election news coverage. i like the programming because it is clear, direct, and it does not seem to be colored by points of view at all. i like to get a clean unfiltered information about the nations of the world -- tune into c-span. >> david maxwell watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to but -- but you as a public service by local television provider. >> a tally of the electoral college votes has reaffirmed obama's re-election.

final count -- for obama, 332, and for romney, 206. since about 30 minutes. -- this is about 30 minutes.

>> the house will be in order. take your seats. >> mr. speaker, the vice president and the united states senate. [applause]

>> mr. speaker, members of congress, pursuant to the law of the united states, the senate and house of representatives are meeting in a joint session to verify the certificate and counsel the votes of the states. the certificates are authentic and correct in form.

they will make a list of the votes from the states. the tellers will take their place at the clerk's desk. the tellers will dispense by reading formal readings of the certificates. after confirming the certificates are authentic, begin with each state, beginning with alabama.

>> mr. president, the certificate of the state of alabama seems to be authentic and it appears that mitt romney received nine votes for president and paul ryan received nine votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of alaska seems to be authentic. it appears that mitt romney received three votes for president and paul ryan received three votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, the certificate of arizona appears to be authentic. mitt romney received 11 votes for president and paul ryan received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of arkansas seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that make romney received six votes for president and paul ryan received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, their

certificate of the state of california seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received 55 votes for president and joe biden received 55 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of colorado seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received nine votes for president and joe biden received nine votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of connecticut seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama of the state of illinois received

seven votes for president and joseph biden received seven votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of delaware seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received three votes for president and joseph biden received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of the district of columbia seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received three votes for president and joseph biden received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, certificate of the state of florida seems to be regular and authentic.

it appears that barack obama received 29 votes for president and joseph biden received 29 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of georgia seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 16 votes for vice president and paul ryan received 16 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of hawaii seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received four votes for president and joseph biden received four votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, their certificate of the state of idaho seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received four votes for president and paul ryan received four votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of illinois seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received 20 votes for president and joseph biden received 20 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of indiana seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 11 votes for president and paul ryan received 11 votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, the certificate of the state of iowa seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that barack obama received six votes for president and joseph biden received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of kansas seems regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received six votes for president and paul ryan received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the commonwealth of kentucky seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 8 votes for president and paul ryan received 8 votes for vice president.

>> mr. president, the certificate of the state of louisiana seems to be regular and authentic. it appears that mitt romney received 8 votes for president and paul ryan received 8 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the state of maine appears to be real and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received four votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received four votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of electoral votes for the state of maryland seems to be regular in form and authentic. it appears therefrom that

barack obama of the state of illinois received 10 votes for president and joe biden received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote for the commonwealth of massachusetts seems to be regular in form and authentic. it appears therefrom that barack obama received 11 votes for president and joseph biden received 11 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of electoral votes of the state of michigan seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of the state of illinois received 16 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 16 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of minnesota seems to be regular in form and

authentic, and it appears that barack obama of the state of illinois received 10 votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of electoral vote of the state of mississippi seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of the commonwealth of massachusetts received six votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received six votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of missouri seems to be regular in for an authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts received 10 votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received 10 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of montana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that mitt romney of massachusetts

received three votes for president and paul ryan of wisconsin received three votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of nebraska seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom at mitt romney of massachusetts received five votes for president and paul ryan of the state of wisconsin received five votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of nevada seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received six votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received six votes for vice-president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new hampshire seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it

appears that barack obama of illinois received four votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received four votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new jersey seems to be regular in farm and authentic, and it appears there from the barack obama of illinois received 14 votes for president and joseph biden received 14 votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of new mexico seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of illinois received five votes for president and joseph biden of delaware received five votes for vice president. >> mr. president, the certificate of the electoral vote of the great state of new york seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears that barack obama of