assaults in the military and the legislation to introduce to change the handling of assaults in the military. at 8:30 a.m., more on the benghazi attacked. >> it seems to me that it came to a head in phone calls your on with lawyers from the department of state prior to congressman chafetz come to visit in libya, is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> what did those lawyers instructed to do? >> i was instructed not to allow the rso, the accuracy -- the active deputy chief of the mission not to be interviewed by chafetz. ♪ host: we want to get your reaction this morning to yesterday's house hearing on the benghazi consulate attack that

was an exchange yesterday between congressman jim jordan and gregory x, one of the three men testifying. -- gregory hicks. you can also make a comment that our facebook page. you can send in any tweet. and finally, you can send an e- mail. your reaction to the benghazi consulate attacked hearings yesterday. "the new york times"this morning --

the story continues --

it's your turn, we want to get your reaction to yesterday's hearing. we'll start with a democrat in new york, stephen, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think the benghazi hearings provided no new information. i watched them. it is bizarre to have a hearing about nothing. i am positive it is just to keep the story hot to try to derail hillary clinton's candidacy. we pray inic -- schools all the time. people keep calling me who don't know anything about schools and bringing back school prayer. that never went anywhere.

we still pray in schools. your reaction to the benghazi consulate attack hearings, buzzards bay, mass., republican. caller: talk about the dumbing down of america with that first call. four or five days prior to the benghazi incident, obama had declared that al qaeda was defeated and on the run. that was fresh in everyone's mind. it was like when w said the mission was accomplished. we soon found out it wasn't. in this case as far as obama, this was too close to an election for him to have egg on his face. they came up with the business about the muslim videotape. on top of that, they use the

general petraeus thing and essentially obama used sex lies and videotape to do the american public just like the first caller, people who cannot open up and see, use critical thinking. he cashed in four american heroes along with susan rice and mrs. clinton for votes. it was simply tragic. his legacy will be the destruction of the american medical system and benghazi. chicago,s is jim independent. caller: i watched the entire hearing and is kind of sad because i remember watergate. it was very bipartisan. unfortunately, we don't want to believe the truth about what went on. republicans are doing a good job and i feel the democrats, if they were to face the truth, it would hurt this president. i believe this is a major cover- up. i would not be surprised if

someone in administration, one of the ambassadors, he probably found out the united states was sending weapons to syria and there were torture chambers and libya. the ambassador was probably going to cover that up and point that out to the media which would have hurt the re-election of barack obama. host: back to " the new york times"--

in a statement wednesday, it was said there would be no retaliation against mr. hicks.

democrat, good morning, the benghazi consulate attacks. caller: yes, i have always said that hillary is totally wrong. she wants to be president

someday and this is the biggest cover up i cannot imagine. she was used as a scapegoat. i think they did not want her in there because she is smart and they put john kerry in their. paid his way into the office. he paid his way to be secretary of state. he wants to hog that. and i think they totally threw her out the door and she is very smart host: guantanamo bay, cuba, on our republican line. caller: i find it completely appalling that the democrats are acting this way. these four men in benghazi died knowing their country abandons them. the sad thing is you can't equate it to someone who gets

murdered in the street. they want to deal with the issue of what happened but not holding anybody accountable. you can say the obama administration is holding the gun that killed someone. they should be accountable and that they can look at these parents of these people and the family members and i have no opening in -- -- no opinion. host: you said you were a former service member? caller: i was in the military for 10.5 years. host: what are you doing in guantanamo bay now? caller: my husband is stationed here and i am a federal employee. host: charles is on our democrat , raleigh, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call i will try to make this brief. they already had an independent investigation on this. this should be over.

this is something to smear the president and hillary clinton. the information that was heard before, the even manufactured information about susan rise. republicans.the the benghazi thing is over with. we lost some people in a dangerous job anyway. putting so much about scandal on the president. we lost those people. in the a lot of people bush administration but the democrats went at it -- did not go after bush like that. it was bipartisan. they had an independent investigation. we get the same information except the republicans are falsifying and it is not true.

this is ridiculous. host: anchor for calling in. j kearney was asked about this issue again yesterday. [video clip] >> the intelligence community, cia, drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points and the fact that their inputs is always the case in a process like this. the only edits made by anyone at the white house were stylistic and not present non-substantive. they corrected the description of the building where the facility in benghazi from coslet to diplomatic facility and the like. ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided with an enormous level of detail by the administration to congressional investigators and the attempts to politicize the talking points again is part to chase after what

is not the substance. host: republican in pittsburgh, go ahead. caller: good morning, a few comments -- first of all, it is apparent that the security at the consulate in benghazi was virtually inadequate and attempts by the employees there including the ambassador to get the state department to increase security was simply ignored. the second thing is that -- i might 30-year navy veteran -- to think our government would not make some attempt to rescue these folks -- they had no idea how this would go on. this excuse that we could have got there in time does not make any sense from a military background. you don't know how long it will go on. the fact that the president's or our defense apparatus made no attempt is disgraceful. these talking points that they put out were designed for one

reason -- it was to get the president be on the election date. he had made a statement that osama bin laden is dead and al qaeda is on the run. this is what happened in out not and it turned to be true. there is much to be learned. i am hoping that at some point in time, somebody will be held accountable. right now, the only guy in jail is the guy who made the video. we don't hear much about what attempts the president and our intelligence apparatus and fbi are going to capture the people that committed these heinous crimes. --t: "the new york times"

this is all from " the new york

times"this morning. an independent from fort lauderdale, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the problem is that the republicans keep nominating these incompetents to congress. they have had eight months and i have not found out to change the talking points. or were the president was that night. that seems to be the real scandal. who was the general who did not send troops or ask for volunteers to go to rescue these guys? i know there were protests in egypt, there were protests in yemen, maybe he could not handle the situation. where are the survivors of the attack? they have been brought back to the states. they have recovered and they were there and they can help identify the people made the attacks and they should be talking to the press, thank you. host: roberts, alexandria, va., democrats online.

what are your thoughts on the benghazi hearing? caller: i think the benghazi hearings will come to nought. wanted the al qaeda u.s. to send troops, sent young men and women to be slaughtered -- it would have reflected on the obama administration. was warnedtration to stand down to avoid casualties that al-qaeda probably set up. it was an ambush. thank you. host: the state department disputes diplomats charges -- this is "the washington post" --

here is the front page of "the wall street journal" -- is a republican in oklahoma, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that i have listened to the hearings yesterday. i am dismayed, disgusted, and heartbroken for the lack of response and concern on behalf of the state department and the administration. clearly, ambassador stephen specifically asked numerous amount of times for additional security on behalf of himself, his staff and his request was repeatedly ignored and the night. even after the massacre that took place on the embassy, special service rescuers were told to stand down.

as an american, i want to state that my heart is truly broken. the blood of these fallen heroes cannot be washed off. their deaths will not be in vain. i pray that the peace of god will rest upon their families and the truth be revealed. we are the greatest country in the world and i am totally appalled at the administration d thisw they handle t benghazi display. it is totally horrible. i am so very grateful for the three men who have come forward. are others that have the courage and the ability to speak and bring forth the truth. thank you so much. host: susan, independent line, talladega, alabama, go ahead caller: i was noticing that mr. hicks in dallas little nervous.

-- seemed a little nervous. he has -- he is a professional and has been other testimony before but could not help but wonder if some of his emotions comes from guilt or remorse. off and it took three calls for ambassador stevens to reach into say they were under attack. i wonder if he had been able to receive the first call, maybe they would have had time to get help. thank you. host: robert is a democrat in fort washington, maryland, go ahead caller: i want to state that sometime in the early summer, i think it was just before the conventions began -- mrs. clinton was called before a committee because she wanted to move some money around in her budget so she could increase the security of the embassies, not just benghazi, but others. she was denied that by the committee very forcefully.

i heard that hearing right here on c-span. host: thank you. the couple of comments from our facebook page -- ill.,s been aurora, independent line, what are your thoughts about yesterday's hearing? caller: with the events of the cover-ups and the terrible

administrative actions regarding benghazi, and the fact that hillary clinton was dirty dancing in different countries and all of a sudden, hit her head probably because she was drinking too much and immediately gets sick with the flu she cannot answer reporter'' or politicians questions. she was out of the picture for a couple of weeks. think it behooves the investigators to either a discount or prove whether somebody in the obama clintonration or the administration had something against this ambassador. -st: a couple of tweets

next call comes from antioch, tenn., a democrat. caller: good morning.

hade the republicans decided not to increase security funding, it sounds to me like they themselves were willing to risk human life for their own petard -- political gains. now that something bad has happened, they want to turn it around and act like nobody did a good job. if you go far enough back, it points to them. monticello,is in ga., on our independent line. caller: i think this is absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to defend the administration. the real crime here is the cover-up. they knew something bad was going on but to blame on funding cuts is absolutely appalling. something could have been done. i have been following this ever since it happened. it was a complete and total cover-up because they knew they dropped the ball. host: thanks for calling in. "the wall street journal" --

the editorial concludes --

darrick is a democrat in new york, what are your thoughts about the hearing? caller: i think yesterday's hearing was just a show. in 2011 andns died the bush administration had plenty of warnings. they covered up the fact that they knew what happened. thousands of people died from the wars that were started because of that and we have americans dumb enough to cry over four people dead in benghazi. maybe obama covered up but look at what bush covered up. wake up, people. he lied to cummings is a democrat from maryland, the ranking member on the committee that held yesterday's hearing.

for is a little bit of his opening statement. [video clip] >> what we have seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way but rather launch unfounded accusations to snare public officials. let me be clear -- i am not questioning the motives of our witnesses. am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes. chairman issa accused the administration of intentionally withholding military assets. which could have helped save lives of the night of the attack. i say for political reasons. of all the irresponsible allegation leveled off for the past two weeks, this is the most troubling. based on what our military commanders have told us, this allegation is simply untrue. oklahoma,hen in republican, what are your

thoughts? caller: wonder what we have not heard why the three generals and an admiral was let go right after benghazi. that came straight from obama and why hasn't cspan covered benghazi until now until after the hearing? you have to cover it now and it's a crying shame that everybody knows that all the americans know this is a cover from the top, the very top down. nixon was in peace for far less. he needs to go, i am calling for his impeachment, he needs to go. host: democrat, pittsburg, new york. caller: the news organizations, no one is covering this trial or this hearing. it is a huge thing. we lost four americans. the first time in our history we have ever had this in a foreign

country. our guys wanted to go get them and they left them there. it's amazing. black hawk down. two gentlemen in black hawk down. they fought for about tw18 hours to get two guys who were already deceased. the news coverage is very sparse. all day yesterday on the blaze. you guys were showing this trial. i don't understand why the mainstream media don't think this is important enough. host:in rock hill, south carolina on the democratic line, gilda. caller: one question i may have missed, but was ambassador stevens required to go there? was that his choice or was he asked to do that from higher ups?

i would like to make an observation about mr. hicks. incidentally, i'm glad there is an open hearing. i'd think there should be. i found it very difficult. i listened to mr. hicks in his times and it was not clear to me whether he was actually in tripoli or benghazi. it sounded like he was right there and yet he was called on his throne by christopher stevens when the attacks started. -- on his phone. da?t: why did it matter, gol caller: because we would all like to hear somebody that was right there with christopher stevens. them saylike to hear exactly what happened rather than people on the phone.

everybody we have heard now were not there. is a republican in high point, north carolina. listening toi was some of the callers making comments about insufficient funding for the consulate in benghazi. that is like other branches of and their opponents screaming day after day that there's not enough funding for that monolithic bureaucracy. [indiscernible] it is just an excuse that the uses to obfuscate and distort what is a tremendous tragedy that has gone on here. it appears that the democratic

party does not want to get to the truth. thank you. in northt was written, carolina. this is laura -- going on iner news washington. here's one piece. today.in usa this is in the washington post and several other papers --

that is in the washington post.

this is in "usa today" this morning --

michael is an independent in colonial heights, virginia. what are your thoughts on yesterday's hearing on benghazi? caller: thanks for taking my call. . think it was a cover-up i am dumbfounded. imat a loss for words. loss for words. i was an army soldier in afghanistan. hundreds andn hundreds of firefights. i cannot even imagine what those guys went through, to be able to hold off against hundreds of militants for hours. they are heroes. it's a disgrace of what has happened.

hillary clinton need to go before the committee and be held accountable and even higher up than her. --t: from the new york times hayward, california, a democrat. caller: hi. my answer to all this is that the american people need to realize that we have official

fbi records and cia of the investigation they held that some things are not to be exposed to the public. inside these hearings that these congress people know that a hearing was held, an investigation was already helping privately where things cannot be exposed to the american people, for our security purposes. and so, these congress people, republicans continue with over 33 hearings regarding this matter over and over is a waste of taxpayer dollars. for this to continue on with using the rhetoric and media, fox tv, to do this, to continue on with this, because we know that the lives they lost

i am very sorry these people lost their lives, but when you have these embassies over there in these different countries that are very dangerous and they take these assignments, when the ambassadors take the assignments, they know that these places are very dangerous. and sometimes we cannot go into other countries and have military. there are certain places we cannot have an army. we have to abide by certain rules. we cannot have a military there. having a negotiate military force there and expect to entreaties to abide by. host: we will leave it there. appreciate your call. "washington times" poll --

mike is a republican in jacksonville, florida. caller: hi. first, i am glad that the scandal or conspiracy or whatever. what i want to put out there is i remember during the mitt romney debates when they brought up hillary clinton and obama stepped out in front of her aunt said that she is not to blame, everything goes through my office and if you want to come after somebody, come after me. he invited this. now we're not getting any information on what's happened.

several months later. so i cannot find a better way to spend taxpayer dollars to help find out what's going on with four dead heroes. bottom line is we went to pakistan and osama bin laden was an enemy and we took him out. yet we are not ready to lift a finger to find out who murdered four americans, whether it was libyans or an extremist group or however or whether it was a cover-up or scandal or a bad situation all the way around where they should not been where they were off because of the protocols and legal dimensions of where they were was not fortified enough to keep them safe and there was an oversight and they are trying to say we are sorry we screwed up, but we are not point to take the blame? but we will pass it on to the three guys sticking their necks

out. i think these guys are doing a heck of a job standing out there and telling the truth. in newhis is zack jersey. caller: hi. i feel sorry for the poor people who died. it's a tragedy and they were heroes. -- the real injustice big scandal is you cannot build a bunker with all of our technology this day and age to give them 12 hours of protection? [indiscernible] it is just bathetic. -- pathetic. i just don't get it. every embassy should have an underground bunker with 12 to 15

hours of air. host: on "politico" -- another article about eric cantor. right here from the hill newspaper --

and from "politico" --

mary in sacramento, your thoughts on benghazi? caller: yes, i completely admire these three men that have come forward. you can see by their body that they are still holding back. they're not going straight for the jugular. that hillary clinton is expert at is covering up murders. nobody wants to say that. howyou have to do is see she covered up the torture- stabbing. host: we have two segments coming up this morning. the house is in at 9:00 a.m. this morning, so we all inhabit two our washington journal. representative poe paul gosar, a member of the oversight committee, will be here. we will continue our discussion on benghazi with him in about 40 minutes. coming next is represented

jackie speier, democrat of california. we will talk about sexual assault in the military. she has introduced legislation to curb that. we will be right back. >> ♪ [video clip] >> what fascinates me about the situation in afghanistan in 1978 and 1979 was just how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist parties or secular parties in afghanistan today. that has all been wiped out pretty much. in the 1970's, those were really the parcel forces in afghanistan. powerful forces.

in 1978er was replaced by the afghan communists, who began trying to remodel society according to their utopian design. they quickly ran aground with that. if the whole country rose up against them. that's why the soviets came. almostvasion and the unending civil war that has followed, compounded by the u.s. ,ntervention in 2001 and after has completely wiped out the old afghanistan that we saw in the 1960's and 1970's. >> revolutionary islam. a pope visits poland. and crack starts to appear in communist countries. that's part of "book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues.

speier,esented jackie member of the armed services committee joining us. sexual assault in the military is the topic for this segment. representative speier, it seems to be a big increase in estimated sexual assaults in the military, 7000 cases. do you agree with the statistics that have come out from the recent report? why the increase? guest: the increase is close to a 83% from the last survey that was done in 2010. 33%.e increase is it is so disheartening because we have put a spotlight on this issue. we have had hearings in the capital. we have had big brass, talk about it. secretary leon panetta called it an epidemic. secretary hagel says he wants to address it and yet nothing changes. host: why the increase?

is there reason given? guest: i think the fact that people are more likely to speak about the fact they been raped. naupa they will come forward, because only about 9% of the 26,000 actually filed a complaint. the reason for that is because more often than not if you file a complaint it is not taken seriously. only about 23% of those cases actually gets a court-martial. and only about 8% of those cases actually end up in convictions. what happens to the victim, they get re victimized. they are then interrogated. the defense has the opportunity to ask them about their previous sexual history. in most states in this country that kind of inquiry is prevented. but not in the military. yourou are ostracized from unit. over time they find a way of discharging you honorably but

often times with a personality difference. host: front page of the new york times -- you have introduced legislation to change the current prosecutions standards. guest: our system is based on the british system. uniform code of military justice was an act of congress in the 1950's. it has not changed in all those decades. meanwhile, the british system has changed. in 1995 they took these cases out of the chain of command and placed them in a separate office. my bill would do precisely that. it would take these cases out of the chain of command, keep them in the military, but create a separate office in the military with experts on prosecution and with legal training to make these kind of decisions. host: the new york times details some of the other bills that have been introduced. how is your bill different from

senator joe grant's or -- from senator kirsten gillibrand's s?ll or mr. turner' guest: mind is similar to turner's. a three-star general dismissed theconviction, reinstated lieutenant colonel in his post, and it's like it never happened. that's because the uniform code of military justice article 60 and 63, of which allow him to do so. my bill would prevent a commanding officer from doing that but also from reducing the sentence. in mr. turner's case, he would allow the convening authority to continue to reduce the sentence. so you could be convicted of a crime, but if you reduce the sentence, then where is the punishment?

host: jackie speier is our guest. the topic is sexual assault in the military. we have set aside our fourth line for active-duty military. 3883. representative speier, a want to get your reaction to what the secretary of defense and recently said. [video clip] >> it is my strong belief and i think others on capitol hill within our institution that the ultimate authority has to remain within the command structure. there are things we need to do, should do, will do to make it more accountable prevents my i suggested the changes. there will be more suggested changes. we're working with the senators and congressmen. have very legitimate points. asi said in my comments and i said a month ago and every response i have had, and i think our leaders have said, what's going on is just not acceptable.

we do have to go back and review every aspect of that chain of command, and that accountability. some things do need to be changed. i don't think taking it away -- the ultimate responsibility away from the military. i think that would weaken the system. host: representative? guest: the secretary i think wants to do the right thing. these listings to his joint chiefs of staff. this is a significant change, but it's a very necessary change. inshould not have persons the military who have no legal training making decisions on whether or not to prosecute violent crime, whether or not there's sufficient evidence to prosecute crimes. they should not be judge and jury. they should not have the power to basically dismiss a case completely. that's the way it stands right now. military justice really is not

justice at all. for every other purpose, having a chain of command makes all the sense in the world. but not when it deals with sexual assault. not when it deals with any felony crime. sexualhen it comes to assault in the military, is it comparable to the civilian world? guest: in terms of actual crime? host: ratios and things like that? guest: if you look at the civilian society, there is a 40% conviction rate of sexual assault cases. in a military, it is 8%. we have a huge problem. host: jackie speier introduced a sexual assault training, oversight, and prevention act establishes a sexual assault oversight and response office of within the department of defense. it establishes a sexual assault oversight and response council in the department of defense. what is the difference between the council and the office?

guest: the council is one that would provide additional advice to the office, but it does not have any ability to circumvent the office actions. host: director of military prosecutions, what would be the function? guest: the director of military prosecution is the function that will be staffed with legal experts, lawyers, attorneys who will be able to assess these cases and make a decision whether or not to move forward with prosecution. , you the important part want to get it removed from the chain of command in the military. guest: >> that is the component. , thatthey make a decision is the information is shared with the commanders, but the commander is not making the final decision. host: we begin with a call from charles in eastern maryland, democrat and in active duty.

you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span and thanks for taking my call. i am an active duty member, master chief currently serving. i agree with the representatives that the dismissal of sexual assaults to not be within the chain of command but that local commanders should be able to adjudicate assaults. the military has taken great steps in terms of awareness, process and protect victims and to prosecute the perpetrators of sexual assaults. guest: thank you, charles. the only thing i disagree with you on is the training and all the prevention has not really resulted in changing the

culture and the incidence of sexual assault and rape. in fact, those numbers have skyrocketed in the last survey. --t: american hero tweets guest: and ? the problem is you can have all these opportunities, but if cases are not going to be prosecuted, in convictions are not going to occur, it does not matter that you have all the frills surrounded. we've got lots of training. we have spent millions and millions on training and creating a separate sexual assault and prevention office. but the truth is nothing is changing. so we've got to look at where others are doing a better job.

host: this is diana in monticello, minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. my question -- and thank you for has it-- my question is gone up more with males or females? be honest. -- theyuld call you used to call yuba dummy democrats. now they call they should call to discuss the democrats. they kilif you kill people and u don't tell the guest: truth sexual assaults in the military happened to men and women. it happens to more men than to women in raw numbers, because there are far more men in the military. but about 14% of the military is female. if the recruited numbers are growing by 20% per year. host: this is from yesterday's baltimore sun newspaper when the

report first came out -- brian lewis said that after he was raped he was told to keep it quiet. he said the report "shows the failure of leadership all the way from the white house to the lowest level commanders and demonstrates the need for aggressive reform. he said he felt sexual assaults had never been taken seriously by the military before. at what level do you see it breaking down? guest: i think it breaks down at every level. we had a general testifying before the armed services committee in the senate this week talking about that the problem in the military really starts with the teenage culture, that kids today are hooking up and therefore that kind of

mentality is wafting into the military. that could not be further from the truth. so it happens at the highest levels and it happens at some of the lowest levels. i sent a letter yesterday to secretary hagel about a disgusting facebook page that was brought to my attention on tuesday. it is so misogynist as to be impulsive. it is emblematic of what has become a culture of discussed and we've got to change it. , st: according to usa today here's the article -- john is active duty marine,

fairfax, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning to the representative. u.s. marine, a democrat. i appreciate your service. guest: i appreciate yours. 'am.er: banks, ma the commandant of my marine corps has recently apologized for the shameful behavior. i am ashamed of what i have been hearing. when we drove down on this issue, perhaps it appears, as you noted in your comments, the lieutenant general and the recent arrest from a particular recruit, and a service academy incidence of rape at a particular services academy. i would personally direct your attention to perhaps a more focused view of the culture in

which service needs more attention. guest: john is referring to the air force, because the air force has had a string of scandals. lackland air force base, where 59 victim's, these were military trainees being sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by 32 military training instructors. they have had problems at the academy. the most recent case in italy was an air force case. the major general that overturn the conviction was obviously from the air force as well. host: is there reason the air force is seeing best? guest: i think there's a growing recognition the air force has a very serious problem. we should probably start there with cleaning up. one of the things i will recommend to the secretary is led to a pilot project. let's take it out of the chain of command in the air force and see how it goes.

try that for size. but let's be clear, this is not just happening in the air force. it's happening in every one of the services. host: representative speier, we have a tweet -- guest: no. there's a survey that's done. in the survey, which is fairly anonymous, you indicate whether or not you have been sexually assaulted or raped. and then you compare that to the actual number of complaints that are filed. so that's where the distinction comes in. in the military, you can also do or restricted report, which is another an anachronistic means of reporting, but you don't want anyone to get charged with it, you just want to get health care associated with the rape or sexual.

sexual host: have you talked to aboutnders or sergeants your legislation, taking it out of the chain of command? guest: i i think they reflect what you heard from secretary chuck hagel. who wants to have power taken away from them? they like the fact they are in total control. they are in control except for determining whether or not there should be a prosecution when a violent crime has been committed. that's the way i look at it. host: next call comes from california. emahns. caller:hi. guest: you are up early. yeah.: i agree there needs to be some type of separate entity for these issues.

but i don't agree with two things. the reason we have had a spike in the military is because we have gotten better reporting mechanisms in place. second, i don't like the fact that we are painting this as the military is not taking steps. have been my sailors mandated to tour all of our barracks from during the nighttime hours on the weekends and during a short period throughout the week to provide a physical presence to curb any type of issues with sexual assault. alerting us you for to that. i am not suggesting that there have not been attempts made to improve the situation. we are spending tens of millions

of dollars on prevention and training programs. there are a number of steps being taken by the military and its attempts to address this. i'm not dismissing the effort being made. i'm just suggesting that we should be seeing dramatic changes in those numbers, which we are not. we are seeing dramatic changes on the upside and the downside. host: have you had to discipline or work on sexual harassment or sexual assault cases? caller: yes, i have. severalmmand, we have -- we have military and civilian, male and female, so i have had to deal with sexual harassment, not sexual assault. but it is everywhere. it is in our society.

guest: 1 happened to the perpetrator in both of those cases? without getting into did end up ail, we tell the civilian your services are no longer needed. in the case of the military taken tohat person was nonjudicial punishment. guest: what was the punishment? what was the actual judgment against them? guest: yes, what did you have them do?

aller: forfeiture of rank and half months pay. perspective, i think that there's a willingness to allow those who sexually harass to continue to stay in the military. in a corporate setting, someone creating a hostile work environment, you are terminated. we don't need people who cannot conduct themselves with good order and discipline. those are hallmarks of the military. has the conduct that is rampant that has been allowed to fester for very long time. host: so instead of forfeiture of rank, half a month's pay, would you would-- and we don't know any of the details of this -- would you advocate taking

somebody out of the military? guest: it would really depends on if this is someone who passes by and just says -- i don't really know. you need the specifics to evaluate it. host: according to the annual defense department report, 6% of women surveyed anonymously as well as 1% of male soldiers declared they had suffered sexual assaults but not reported them. steve is in maple, north carolina, republican. jackie speier, democrat of california, is our guest. guest: hi. caller: good morning and thank you for your service. yearppen to be a retired 30- marine. my daughter, 14 years ago

suffered a rape in the u.s. marine corps. since then i have been fighting to try to restore name. -- her name. the pattern of the personality disorder, i am familiar with that. i am a little emotional about this. guest: i understand. and your story is so similar to so many out there. caller: my daughter, they tried to initially discharge her under a pattern of misconduct. the commanding general in new orleans picked it back because they had a problem. was a series of undergrad at recruit training. anyone knows about the military will know this is extraordinary. i'm so proud of my daughter. she obtained the rank of corporal in 11 months in the marine corps. extraordinary story. letters of commendation, all

those things. so they tried to discharge her for that but were not able to. her they tried to discharge for a personality disorder. the problem with that is she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder. so the board of correction of naval records agreed with the documents that i submitted, so they came back and ultimately discharged her for a physical condition and not a disability. i have been fighting this for years. as recent as yesterday i spoke with the office of the sergeant major of the marine corps, a fine gunnery sgt. the sergeant major of the marine corps, and major barrett, also a fine man, refuses to meet with me. general a mess, a fine marine officer, refuses to meet with me. -- general amos.

to meet with me. host: steve, what was the final results? caller: the final result was my daughter was discharged from the marine corps, was assigned an re4 discharge code, which means that you are not recommended. it is a stigmatizing stain on our family that has for generations, back to the american revolution, served in the guest: military steve, would you do me a favor and call my office and give me the specifics and let me see what i can do. i can hear the pain in your voice. this has been the track record of the military for decades. they find a way of sweeping these cases under the rug and the victim.mize the kind of discharge is staining.

we've got to make an example of cases like your daughter's so that the military gets it right. , if you'll call my office, i would love to look into this. host: susan is in north carolina, and she's a member of the reserve. guest: hi, susan. host: susan, you've got to turn down the volume on your tv. we are listening. caller: i'm also a former marine. it is that way in the marine corps. if a woman reports or it is brought to the attention of the command, the woman is shunned by the marine corps. were youd you ever -- sexually assaulted? caller: yes. guest:? did you: caller: not for years later. host: why?

caller: because the person that did it was highly respected in the military. his chain of command protected him. they did not want nothing to happen to him. guest: her point is really good. under the code of military justice there is a way in which you can mitigate a judgment and a sentence if you have a good military character. a greatns if you are soldier, the fact that you are a great soldier can reduce the ,entence or reduce the charge even though it is established that you have raped. , a democrat, michigan. caller: hi. i just wanted to say i was in the military in 1976 in the air force. i had a co-worker tried to rape

me. it was reported the next morning. i was the one -- i have to take a polygraph test because the man i accused would not. in order to get him discharged, reduced in rank, i had to take some of the most humiliating questions i have ever been asked at age 19 in my life. dreamt had never even of, perversions. they asked if i had done these these things.mpt things i might be done with my husband, they wanted to know about. it was the most horrendous experience of my life. and i was pregnant at the time. did thisme and the man to me. they had me take this polygraph and i was pregnant. my baby was born three months

prematurely. my doctors said it was because of stress. luckily, i was able to get out with a hardship discharge and good standing. had i not, i was already being shunned by everybody who knew me and knew that i was a good, decent person. guest: could i ask how old you are now? caller: 56. guest: i get chills right now, because your experience happened so many years ago and obviously is still very painful for you. that is what happens to so many victims. , the suffering, the victimization continues. i just extend my sympathies to you. thank you for the service you did provide our country. thank you for speaking out. we will fix this so that not another generation of women and men who are impacted by this. ist: representative speier,

there anything to do with door the type of people -- is there anything to do with recruitment or the type of people going into the military that creates a situation that could be changed? guest: when it was all volunteers and we were engaged heavily in iraq, reporters were willing to take people that probably did not have pristine records. that is not the case today. and that is not a reason -- that's not an excuse. it's time to stop finding six uses. we've had a number of examples this morning that make the case of why this is so important to address. and it has been happening over and over again for decades. the last caller, mary, when she was talking about the humiliation and the interrogation, there's no rape shield law in the military. there is in virtually every

other state. so why would anyone want to report a crime when they are going to be put through an interrogation of 12 hours and the defense counsel will be able to ask them about their prior sexual history? who wants to deal with that? and want you to suck it up move on. that's the situation where you allow sexual predators to infiltrate the military and really create a cancer that is just growing. host: george is in mount pleasant, south carolina. caller: i think that there should be a time when you all admit that you messed up by trying to integrate women and men in the same quarters together in the military. it just is not going to happen. you are getting what you bargained for. it does not make any sense to expect men not to be men and women not to be women.

this is going to continue to happen until a new suck it up and get rid of the idea that you are going to put men and women in close quarters together a common in men and young women. just admit you messed up. really disagree. i think that women and men can serve our country together in the military. when you think about, this is not just an ordinary environment. you are trained to follow your responsible be a service member, showing good order and discipline. and i can think that this idea that boys will be boys and therefore we've got to accept that it is just wrong. host: has the situation hurt recruitment of women into the armed forces?

guest: i don't know the answer. we know recruitment of women is going up. with their ability to now serve in combat, which gives them greater likelihood of being promoted to significant posts, that you might see more women. what's interesting, among many of the victim's i have talked with and met with, they have a legacy of service. their father was in the military, their grandfather. these were persons that made careers of the military. so here's a young daughter who has been encouraged by her family to invest and who has made a commitment to want to serve in a career in the military. then to have it become caught off because of a rape is just tragic. host: do you face -- being a female member of the armed services committee, the you see anything -- i don't know. is it a male culture?

sure, absolutely. but that does not mean because it's a male culture it cannot be a fair and equitable culture where we respect individuals and treat them with dignity. that's what this is really all about. host: representative speier is also on the oversight and government reform hearing yesterday. you as one of the witnesses, mark thompson, he made the mentioned that thompson would not meet with democratic members. what was the approach the democrats took to meet with mark thompson and why would he not meet with you? guest: whenever there's a hearing, there's a witness list that comes out. haveally, the republicans an opportunity to ask questions so they know what their testimony will be like, and the democrats have the opportunity to ask questions. mark thompson's attorney refused

to allow the committee staff to meet with him and to get a sense of what his testimony was going to be about. so it was a very partisan hearing when it really did not have to be. there are some legitimate issues we have to address. the accountability review board that actually was independent review the been gaubenghazi tray came out with a blistering criticism and very important recommendations. we need to focus on that, because we've got men and women serving in our diplomatic core around the world in hot spots, in very potentially dangerous hot spots, and we should able to say to their family members, we've got their backs. i don't know if we can say that. we could not say that in tripoli or benghazi, because the buildings were ranked as being high threat buildings that

needed more reinforcement and they did not have it. and yet we still took occupancy of those buildings. host: did you learn anything yesterday? guest: i cannot say there was a lot of light shed on the issue yesterday. there have been nine hearings. there's been an exhaustive report. i think we've got to focus on moving forward. if i'd think the republican spin about this is another watergate or this will be worse than watergate or this will bring down the presidency or foil secretary clinton oppose the efforts to be a presidential candidates are pretty transparent. i think there was a little too much of that kind of posturing going on. having said that, i think mr. hicks is a fine diplomat, a courageous diplomat. and i think that he should be posted to a new where he can show the kind of leadership that

he showed in benghazi and in tripoli. host: we have been talking with a representative jackie speier, democrat of california. next, paul gosar, republican of arizona, also a member of the oversight and government reform committee. we will return our discussion to the benghazi hearing in just a minute. >> ♪ [video clip] lot more people cared about national security issues than was the case before. so all of a sudden there was a market for its former cia folks, former defense intelligence agency and even former national security agency, the big eavesdropping agency, all those guys used to operating in the shadows. they saw a market for their services as commentators, book riders.

-- writers. so there was this uncomfortable interaction between the agencies can these former employees. >> at the time i felt waterboarding was something we needed to do. astime has passed and september 11 has moved farther and farther back into history, i think i changed my mind. i think waterboarding is probably something we should not be in the business of doing. >> why > >> because we are americans and we are better than that. meant well,a guy who who served his country well for 15 years in some very dangerous situations. he risked his life to take on all, in pakistan and to take on before that. athens he's gone off to prison in 30 months leading his young family behind. >> this weekend, a feature story

from spy resource to conduct their the story of the jail cia officer. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. washington journal continues. host: joining us is a representative paul gosar, republican of arizona, member of the oversight and government reform committee. yesterday's hearing on benghazi, did you learn anything new? guest: i think we did. the whole gist of oversight is to bring forward the facts. we definitely had a problem in benghazi and what we wanted to do was find out the facts, because we cannot repeat this. one of the things we want to make sure is put things in place if so this does not happen again. we lost four great man. they are our greatest asset. an ambassador and three other folks. .o i think we did

ddos attacks of people on the ground that were in tripoli. it was a very good hearing. host: what did you learn that you did not know already from the previous hearing? wast: we knew that there disfunction aspects in libya from the accountability, looking at the buildings, the conflict, definitely had a deficit in their aspects of their compound, parameters, defense, not meeting state department standards. also knew that they had some of their defense removed prior to this. so we actually saw on the ground the administration and the state department narrative that they put out on that weekend that this was not about a video. that it was not about an orchestrated process. this was very deliberate and this was an attack. host: when gregory hicks talked about the phone call from mills,

was that new information? guest: that's new information. that's coming from his vantage point, being the no. two in libya, being in tripoli and being the last person to talk to the ambassador. host: several of the democrats, including our previous guest jackie speier, made mention in the hearing that mark thompson would not meet with the democratic staff to get an idea of their line of questioning. did he meet with the republican staff? and did that puts a partisan pall over the hearing? guest: i don't think so. i think he reached out, but i don't think there was an organized question and answer with mr. thompson from our standpoint. i think that was stated by the chairman in the meeting as well. i think coming forward as a whistleblower with the contentious aspects that or already shown here, you seen mr. hicks pushed back to being at a

desk doing nothing of what his profession is all about. what we have seen in past retaliation is what happened to whistle blowers in fast and furious. people want to minimize exposure until they have their say. host: what was your line of questioning like about yesterday? guest: starting with what transpired. how it really is impugned the president of libya. they called him a liar and he talked sunday about this being an attack. they defaced him and from the people and the world and his people. i think it showed we were delayed an hour investigation 17 days with the fbi allowing them to get into benghazi on the

crime scene was disrupted and very few things were actually secured. that is why we are where we are today host: have you been to libya? have you talked to your colleagues it not? guest: i have not been to libya. i looked at embassy security in january. we went into turkey, israel, cyprus. we went to lebanon, algeria, morocco, and we went to spain. there is definitely a problem here. it is not a matter of if this is going to happen again host: here is a tweet -- guest: this goes to the very soul of america. when we take our precious resources, our men and women of the armed services, our state department people, and put them in harm's way and watch them die and don't do anything, that is

sad because this is what this is all about. whyt of people are asking it takes so long. mr. hicks may dead clear and tried to work this as a remedy to the state department through internal mechanisms before coming forward. the way we have treated whistle- blowers in the fast with three -- in the past with retaliation makes them the very people recalcitrant to come forward. host: here is another treat -- that was brought up yesterday. you could take this story line into nairobi, kenya and get the same result. we have a failure. that is what part of the problem i am a dentist impersonating a politician. we like accountability and the public sector. toallow political folks bypass justice and being accountable and that's got to

stop. that is what is missing here. we have not held the political appointees accountable. yesterday, it was very clear that they tried to blunt some of the folks within the state department at the lower level instead of those at a higher level and it points to decisions made by the secretary of state. is --gosaraul goasr guest, bill, louisville ky, independent line. caller: i'm little older than you folks. i have been watching the president since harry truman. i think this whole thing about benghazi is very clear. if you remember back to the second presidential debate when mr. romney was debating mr. obama, he did not bring up the question of benghazi. it was my understanding that he received an intelligence agency briefing prior to that debate.

most of the material concerning benghazi was classified. i was wondering if that was the reason he did not bring it up because he no was classified. as far as what actually happened, i think that is abundantly clear mr. obama got beat in the first debate and could not take another beating. they tried to cover it up and make it look like it was something other than what it really was. it was because he did not need to get creamed in another debate. he lied about it and it is that clear. definitely, we see that discussion in the hearing yesterday with the other side of the aisle talking about this classified aspect. most of the stuff was not classified. it has been put under the shroud by this administration. out wass narrative put a deceitful like.

it misled the american public. it does not match up and that was clear from the testimony of mr. hicks. host: a democrat from dayton, ohio, go ahead caller: good morning, everybody. this is much ado about nothing. there is a misconception. there was no reason to cover anything up. i would vote for president obama today, i would vote for him if he could run again in 2016. same thing for hillary clinton. the person at fault was christopher stephens. if he requested extra security and he did not get it, and he was still in benghazi, he is the responsible party. that is who is responsible for this, folks. he should have left and been on the next plane out of there. host: what about christopher

stephens being in benghazi? guest: he was taking orders directly from hillary clinton. hillary clinton wanted to make a permanent base in benghazi and want to utilize the money they had available to them. he was trying to do the job that she had intended. this was an overture from the secretary of state. the regard to the building and benghazi and the u.s. embassy in tripoli, there was an exception from the secretary of state. mrs. clinton is severely involved in this aspect. -- caller made the comment that is a sad state of affairs when you talk about four dead americans, are bravest men and women put in harm's way and we watched them die. this goes to the very soul of what our country is all about

now. host: joseph tweets - guest: we need to get all the facts first. that was another point of contention yesterday. people who were in benghazi or hicks, li and even mr. they had not seen what was put in and some are not evaluated. looking at the security aspects on the ground, they were bypassed. you're not entitled to your own story when you make a report. you have to get all the facts. ande going to come back bring those two gentlemen in as to why they did not talk to top security people and write a true story about what happened. host: will we see further

hearings on this issue? guest: i'm sure we will. host: do you know when? guest: i don't know. host: have their looked at classified documents regarding this? documents thatre were claimed to be classified that or not. down and wey them did so. we looked at materials that talked about how many hits on the supposed video that did not exist but caused the problem. we have looked at those. i have not gone through them all but my fair share, i definitely have. host: walden, new york, republican, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask the watchingative, from the testimony, mr. hicks talked

about a standout order. -- a stand down order. guest: thank you so much. general hamm, there were overtures he was going to leave anyway but this did not have anything to do benghazi. there is a serious breach of problems here with the stand down. not only did we know that benghazi and tripoli were hotbeds, there were over 200 incidences in one year just in tripoli that have been documented as terrorist activities, 50 in benghazi. we knew there were problems coming. to see the shortchanging of our security forces by almost 40%, maybe 60%, is a further degradation. happening,started there were no protocol's followed in trying to get people into benghazi.

there is a nice story talked- about. one military man tried to save the body of his comrades. we don't leave anybody behind and we should be scrambling to do anything especially with our nato comrades. we did not have a tanker to fewer plants? why didn't we talk to our italian friends or our nato friends? we made a phone call to the libyan government. we should have done more. that is where america is scratching their heads. why did we allow people to die? one issue thatr, was brought up yesterday was funding. guest: even mrs. clinton

said this had nothing to do with funding. when i went on this codel, went to morocco where we are building a brand new embassy and spending $154 million. i want to remind of the listeners that i'm a dentist in per citing a politician. i asked how much the old embassy was worth and do we have a buyer? they did not know any of that. we are also spending $1 billion on an embassy in great britain. why would we need that? this is a problem of prioritization. they said this had nothing to do with money? let's make sure we're talking about the facts. host: texas, independent line, go ahead caller: let me start by saying that i am military-

inclined. my husband is a disabled vietnam veteran. we left people to die in benghazi. what does it matter? it matters to me and i don't know them and i cannot believe i am the only one. i'm a true independent. i voted for bill clinton both times and did not vote for gore or kerry, voted for obama in 2008 but not in 2012. based on benghazi, praise god, i did not vote for him in 2012. this was so inept. i don't even think the republicans, the people trying to uncover this have scratched the lid off of what truly happened. after all this happened, the president stood in front of the u n and still talked about a video. i watch that happen on the video.

how those democrats that criticized these men yesterday could do it with a straight face blows my mind it was one of those days i was glad i was independent. i am embarrassed for our country. i am ashamed of our administration. will get an answer. guest: you are not the only one. a number of us as to what it mattered? when i asked the question of mr. hicks, i said i was mad. i could not watch the comments from our secretary of state as to what it matters. it does matter to america. matters when we put the resources of our brave men and women on the line and stacking it up with lies. i think that is a disgraceful aspect. they would be proud that three men came forward as

whistleblowers to tell a story and presented the facts. even more so, mr. hicks tried to remedy this but within the process and the administration and got nowhere and was forced to come forward. showing light on these facts will set us free. continue that pursued and make sure you are proud of america but also make sure people are held accountable. did you have a, chance to talk with the witnesses before or after the hearing? guest: not before but i made a comment to mr. thompson. i like strategy and i think you always look at precipitating action. the enemy is always watching us. when they acknowledge that they are checking out our fortifications and defense of our consulates and embassies, they see the reduction in forces. they know when they are going to strike. they know when the perfect time is. we gave them a heads up as to

what to do and how that was going to happen. you could go back to the earlier testimony from lieutenants woods. he made the comment that we were the last flag flying. we had an assassination attempt on the british ambassador and they took down their flag and left. we're the last flag flying and you did not know something was coming on 9/11? the intelligence community was not wrong. we administration and the state department at the highest level that ms. used that information. host: hyattsville, maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just have one question -- that two civilians that were killed in the attack, were they employed by a private contractor or were they under the military branch of an agency's?

host: why is that important? caller: the gentleman made a comment that when you get out of the service and you are employed by a civilian company, you are now mercenary. a contract to protect that embassy, why is anyone not being questioned about that? and hishe ambassador closest aides were under the state department. the two gentlemen, the two navy seals, were from the cia. all four of these were under government control these were not mercenaries. actually navy seals left their area to come to help that is an ounce -- that is outstanding so they should be complemented.

if you think about how great our fighting men and women are, the accounts yesterday showed that maybe six of our men with small arms actually re-took a compound that had 60 people that overran it. that is how important it is to have more resources, even a few that tells you how good our special forces are. >> santa barbara, calif., republican line. caller: i watched the hearings yesterday and i want to comment on something mr. hicks said. he said he talked with the ambassador and alerted him to the problems in egypt. thaticed that he also said around 9:30 or so he was in his villa relaxing and watching tv. in the process, he missed two calls from the ambassador. then he tried to call him back, he thought it wasbad cell

service. the whole thing seems so hokey. i can hardly believe it. i don't see heroes here. hicks up to the president and mrs. clinton, it seems ridiculous. you exploit what you mean by hokey? had maybeuld he have a staff found or something more up-to-date than make cell phone service to fall back on? were two former calls that he had missed. one was the ambassador cell phone but another number that he did not recognize. he called that second number and that's how he got a hold of the person with the ambassador. i don't find it hokey.

that is an opportunity of communication. mr. hicks was in tripoli. the ambassador was in benghazi. host: jonathan in atlanta, independent. i have a comment and question from multiple sources, my understanding is that the was responsible for the attack on the libyan embassy. i would like to ask the representatives -- will there be any upcoming congressional hearings, bipartisan hearings, on the funding and blow back that is occurring -- that occurred in libya and possibly in syria? guest: what we saw from the tweets was militant groups that were strongholds in libya and not in syria. thatnk there were claims

one group was responsible and the hospital and was the ambassadors body was taken was under their control we should be having hearing from every level of this aspect including the accountability review board. and who put it together and why they did not talk to everybody and holding people responsible host:marie, glen burnie, maryland, a democrat. caller: i would like to say to the representative from arizona -- i saw the hearing yesterday. i believe it was a disgrace to me and to a lot of american citizens the way the republicans tried to use this in order to discredit. they are thinking ahead for 2016. they are trying to discredit hillary clinton just in case she decides to run as president of

the united states. they are so afraid that they will not have a chance to get into office and get into the white house because they hate this president is so much. i am totally disappointed in the republicans, they are supposed to represent all of the united states, not just their particular party. guest: i think that is was great about our constitution is that you have the freedom of speech to tell your opinion. i don't share that opinion. yesterday was about getting facts. it is disgraceful what this administration and the secretary of state made comments publicly. i am a believer and personal accountability and i see a huge hierarchyr political particularly in this administration and mrs. clinton. if you can stand by the comment of what does it matter and look the american people in the eye,

so be it. i don't think that is the mainstream of america and i think that is sad. we've got to do this in a bipartisan manner is asked what the real soul is of -- is of this country? how can we turn our sights away from a distance graceful action and watch them die. we actually watch them die and i think that is disgraceful. host: rep gosar - i applaud the chairman. i am one of his pit bulls. when you look at first and accountability, in fast and furious, we put guns in the hands of drug cartels at the expense of one of our own. 300 mexican people without accountability -- who authorized that?

when they have the ability to go to the president of mexico and chastise the american people? no, the buck stops somewhere and it stops at the highest level, the president. when you look at benghazi, here is a recurring nightmare for the american people and our military that we put them in harm's way. what is next? america cannot stand this. this is going at the very soul of what made our country great. with accountability and responsibility in making sure americans have all the facts and allow their voices to be heard. formero you see secretary point in coming back to testify again? guest: i would expect her to. host: and susan rice? guest: i would expect her to. comeonorable thing is to forth and tell your story and face the music. you should have nothing to hide. i have said that in the hearings

of fast and furious and i said that here. in the private sector, you get accountability. what a shameful is that you see people hiding behind a political cloak of the justice department and it is time to come clean. host: next call is from a republican in oregon. i am a retired steel. -- seal. we are missing the boat on this whole ordeal. happened and i news media situation is what happened that i believe on fox news. there were two gentlemen that came out. they were retired navy seals, i could tell by the way walked. by there basically hired cia to locate 30,000 shoulder mounted missiles. that is what they were there for.

this old thing goes back to fast and furious. fast and fear is that the president in trouble because of the weapons that when across the border. exactly what those guys were over there for -- they were two of the guys that went to benghazi to get those people out. they have been held back from the news and no one has heard from them sense and they came on that one program. they were talking about it and there were probably talking beyond their deal. they were excited about being there and saving those people. those people have not been heard from, not since the first time they were presented on the news media. ever since then, it has been a black out. this whole thing goes right back to those shoulder mounted missiles. either they look at them or they were afraid to let people know that those shoulder mounted missiles were there. if we sent aircraft in y, they're going to get knocked out.

thank guest: fee-for-service. that is what they had the series is to get the facts. the second command in libya, the acting ambassador for that area when christopher stephens was murdered -- we wanted to get the narrative about what actually they saw on the ground level. this is the first time we heard from people in the know who were put in place and getting the phone calls as things happened. continue and uncover the facts as we can find them host: what is our current footprint in libya? and anhave a consulate embassy in tripoli. we are trying to work with the current regime because of a democracy where they had a turnover from khaddafi. at having aook compassionate footprint and work with people and that is what the

state department does so well and i think mr. hicks emulated that is that you want to be part of the culture. you want to communicate and partake in their culture. embrace to empower and how they look at democracy and freedom of speech. i like that we are persistent but i also think that when you look at mr. nordstrom, if it takes us to have mounted turretts with mounted weapons, why are we there? we have to have better discussions and prioritization on where we are putting our men and women. what are we looking at from are at sashays in the state department? what are the buildings? there have to be common denominators and we have to hold post countries accountable for us to help them. host: do we have any facilities

in benghazi today? my guest: understanding is that we do. we still have a presence in benghazi but probably not what was before. host: 2 we know what has been done to the old building? guest: i'm not sure. i suspect nothing at this point in time. i think benghazi is an important aspect in libya because it is on the eastern aspect and has so many details and so many aspects to oil and the economy of libya that it needs to be a part of our outpost. host: has anyone in libya been brought to account for the attack? guest: nobody. heard, becauseve of the delay of 17 days from the fbi getting to the crime scene, it was never secured. the diary for the ambassador was found by one of our news sources. it is disgraceful.

we have nobody in custody. host: very quickly, we will get a comment from south dakota -- of the most is one shameful and disgraceful periods in our history. furious --d fast and these are terrible things that have happened and people have died. what does it matter? even then, hillary clinton lied about it. she said it was either the video or people out for a walk. it was neither one of those cases. it was clearly a terrorist attack and everybody knew it. for three weeks, there are still trying to carry that narrative that was some kind of response to a crazy video. host: we will leave it there. rep gosar, thank you for being

on the program this morning. the house of representatives is coming into session at 9:00 this morning so [video clip] " ending early. "washington journal" is ending early. they will be working on the full faith and credit act and will vote on that, what is that? guest: it helps us prioritize something we were talking about earlier, prioritizing how we pay our debts before a government shutdown. host: if you go to see -- if you go to c-span.org, another hearing is recovering today include immigration, the boston bombing, the speaker's press conference and you can go to c- span.org and find that information, thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] jacqueline, sisters of notre dame, notre dame cathedral school in ohio. the chaplain: creating god. this day we are surrounded by

the immensity of your universe as spring unfolds before us. you continually bestow hints of your beauty, creative power, bundance, goodness and care. you say to us, look around and rejoice as new life bursts forth. with this perspective, we embrace work this day. we come before you as men and women committed to the trusts given to us by our nation. led by your spirit, we beg you to open our minds and hearts to our responsibilities. teach us how to exercise wisdom, courage and our gift for the common good by arriving at workable and reasonable solutions. may our actions result in greater charity, justice and the transformation of our world

. with your guidance, this is our hope and prayer as we accept our call to serve as restorers of new life and give glory to you. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor independent diindicate by saying -- indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal is approved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. kaufman: mr. speaker, i de-- mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of -- the speaker: those in favor of

taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman , mr. bridenstine. mr. bridenstine: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from ohio, mr. joyce, is recognized for one minute. mr. joyce: thank you. i want to thank the sister for leading the house in prayer and for making this trip from ohio. it was a beautiful prayer and it's an absolute honor to have her here sister. i met sister jacqueline where she is the president and all three of my children attended high school. she is a model of grace, compassion and humility and i feel very lucky i've had my three kids under her watch.

she volunteers at the hospice of the western reserve and countless other schools, organizations and churches in northeast ohio. she's taken her service beyond our border, making the trip to israel and jordan and traveling to china, brazil, el salvador and other places. this small school has allowed many children of middle-class families such as ours enjoy their college preparatory education while becoming leaders in the community all while keeping to the mission of through love.th thank you very much for leading the house of representatives in rayer. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain five further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina eek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, yesterday our house speaker indicated it was our high honor to host her excellency, the president of the republic of korea. mr. coble: she expressed profound gratitude to us for our friendship with korea and shared with us improvements realized by her country since the guns fell silent in 1953. many refer to the korean war as the forgotten war, but, mr. speaker, there was no evidence on capitol hill yesterday to suggest that this war has been forgotten. the korean president referred to this chamber as hallowed ground, of freedom and democracy. the past came alive yesterday as our congress hosted this very distinguished leader from

korea. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington ise? ms. delbene: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delbene: i'm proud to introduce the training through education act. this bill will help improve access to opportunity for struggling families by helping people get jobs and an education while reducing the need for government assistance. it will spur pilot projects across the country, modeled after my home state of washington supplemental nutrition programs and employment training program. washington's program is an extraordinary example because it provides targeted education services leading to economic self-sufficiency. this focused strategy helps parents gain the necessary

skills -- helps participants to gain the necessary skills. even in the height of the recession when jobs were scarce, 60% of those enrolled in washington's program found employment. in one study, less than half of the participants remained on government assistance two years after starting the program. this jobs bill is a prime example of how the government can spend a little money now and save a lot in the future. i urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? oklahoma, sorry. i was going to give you a promotion. mr. bridenstine: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose h.r. 684, the marketplace fairness act. imagine if a state had the authority to reach beyond its

borders into another state and compel a business in the other state to collect and remit taxes. imagine a business being forced o collect taxes for over 9,600 local different -- different local tax jurisdictions and open to audit by different states yet having representation in one of those tax jurisdictions. this law would overturn no taxation without representation. imagine the same business losing market share to offshore businesses that cannot be compelled by congress to collect taxes for local jurisdictions in the u.s. now, imagine that business either closing its doors or leaving the country in order to compete. the unintended consequences of the marketplace fairness act have not been considered. i understand why some people support it, but this bill is not the right solution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week we're celebrating national nurses week. as a doctor, i want to salute the over three million registered nurses for their service to our patients. the particular -- the partnership between physicians and nurses is critical to ensuring america's health. mr. bera: and this partnership will become even more important as we move to contain the cost of health care. america's nurses will be key to making sure that every patient in america has access to affordable health care. so on this national nurses week, this doctor chooses to salute nurses everywhere for their service to america's patients. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from ohio rise? indiana. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. according to the department of defense, in 2011 there were an estimated 19,000 victims of sexual violence in the military. however, only 2,700 service members actually filed a sexual assault report. these numbers are daunting and completely inexcusable. earlier this week, i was proud to introduce bipartisan legislation with congresswoman loretta sanchez. this bill strengthens whistleblower protections for military sexual assault victims. these protections ensure victims of sexual crimes have the same rights as other military whistleblowers. today we have the opportunity to provide service men and women with the peace of mind that they can report sexual violence without fear of retaliation.

i encourage all my colleagues to support h.r. 1864 and help eradicate sexual violence in the armed forces. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to introduce keeping all students safe act to protect schoolchildren from abusive solution and restraint practices. mr. miller: these practices are at best cruel and at worst deadly and they continue to be used in children across the country. an 8-year-old girl with down syndrome had her shoes taped to her ankles because she refused to put her shoes on. a boy was confined in a cardboard box because he was in time-out. another was pinned to the floor by three staff members after a

tantrum he had while working on a puzzle. in virginia, a 13-year-old boy was placed in solitary confinement for three hours after he threw his lunch. in some cases children have died with these improper restraints. my bill will stop these abusive practices. congress needs to act. there's no room for torture in america's schools. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. coffman: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: madam speaker, we need to amend a fundamentally unfair provision within the patient protection and affordable care act, better known as obamacare. that is many of the very people who have been responsible for writing, advocating for, passing, signing into law and promulgating rules regarding the implementation of obamacare are exempt from the coverage requirements mandated under this law. that's why i'm introducing the

affordable care act accountability act. this will require the president, the vice president, all of the cabinet secretaries, all political appointees, all members of congress and all congressional staff, including those from committees in leadership to receive their health insurance coverage through the insurance exchanges required under obamacare. americans deserve to know that their government officials will never seek to pass legislation only to exempt themselves from all of its provisions. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the work of one of my constituents, bill jennings. mr. mcnerney: mr. jennings is

currently executive director and chairman of the california sport fishers protection alliance and a board member of the california water impact network and an executive committee member of restore the delta, a group that educates the america about the importance of the san joaquin delta. mr. jennings has been recognized numerous times for his work on behalf of our environment and has received many awards, including the international conservation award from the federation of fly-fishers and the directors achievement award from the california department of fish and game. mr. jennings is an outspoken guardian of the san joaquin delta and i admire his tireless education to protecting water -- dedication to protecting water. he reminds us to safeguard our treasured national resources for generations to come. it's been an honor to know mr. jennings and it's encouraging to know that people like mr. jennings are out there working on our behalf. mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, while america has the world's most generous immigration policy, we simply lack the resources to assess all the world's immigrants into america. the president and senate gang of that push an amnesty bill per the american heritage foundation costs the american taxpayers a net tax loss of $6.3 billion, enough to eliminate sequestration. in april, 2013, a pew center poll revealed that 20% of all mexicans, 22 million mexicans, say they want to illegally immigrate to america if they can get away with it. mr. brooks: america cannot afford to open these massive

floodgates any more than we can afford an amnesty plan that rewards illegal conduct while adding $.3 trillion to america's already dangerous and exploding national debt. a debt, i might add, that is already doing significant damage to america's economy and national security. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the memory and sacrifice of walter finch wakinski of delute, minnesota. mr. walz: his story should make each of us reflect on the sacrifices that were made to allow us the precious gift that democracy and self-government, born in 1914 on a farm to polish immigrants, walter enlisted in the army on february 6, 1941.

after basic training he was sent to fort mills in the philippines. he man add 12-inch moatar and fought to repel the japanese invasion. standing until the very end with his unit sustaining 70% casualty rate. he fought on when corregidor fell and the general cabled these words to president roosevelt. there is a limit of human endures and that point has long past. walter was taken prisoner by the japanese and transported on the hell ships to be slave labor in japan. his family presumed him dead. he was liberated in august, 1945, and returned home december 5, 1945. he then humbly set about going back to work as a mechanic, marrying, raising a family, and lived a life of dignity. yesterday, may 8, marked the 25th anniversary of walter's death. we should all be thankful for his life. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 202, i call up the bill h.r. 80 , the full faith and credit act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 29, h.r. 807, a bill to require that the government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event of the debt limit is reached. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 202, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means, printed in the bill, is adopted. the bill as amended is

considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 113-52, if offered, by the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 807. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i rise today in support of h.r. 807, the full faith and credit act. this legislation credibly and permanently removes the threat of default on a u.s. debt payment and ensures that social security benefits are paid in

full and on time. the bill is really quite simple. it requires the treasury department to issue debt not subject to the scat torrey limit to make principal and interest payment. here are the facts about who holds that debt. american families and businesses hold the overwhelming majority of u.s. debt. teacher pension funds, individual americans, our military retirement fund, and the list goes on and on. so by ensuring the treasury has the ability to honor our debt obligations, we are in fact ensuring americans will be paid. this legislation is the first step in protecting our credit rating. two major credit rating agencies, standard & poor's, and moodies, have indicated they differentiate between debt and other payments when determining whether or not to review our credit rating. to that end this bill specifically addresses the default on u.s. debt obligations that these agencies have identified. additionally, standard & poor's

was crystal clear why it downgraded the u.s. credit rating following the debt negotiations in the summer of 2011. i quote, the downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's median term debt dynamics, end quote. in plain english, they downgraded the u.s. credit rating because we have not addressed the primary drivers of our debt and deficit. it's nearly two years later and neither the president nor congressional democrats have offered a serious plan that would adress -- address the problems that caused the downgrade in the first place. this legislation place that is responsibility on the obama administration -- places that responsibility on the obama administration and encourages the president to be more involved in taming our debt something the republicans have long called for. some critics claim it opens the door for treasury to issue new debt for new spending or simply raising the debt limit by

another means. this is categorically false. this bill does not increase the debt limit. instead, under this legislation, treasury loses the authority to issue debt above the limit if doing so creates any room under the existing old debt limit. treasury may not issue new debt above the statutory limit again until the limit is reached. additionally, any new debt issued to pay principal and interest is not exempt from the statutory limit unless issuing the new debt would cause treasury to exceed the statutory limit. the american people agree, and that support transcends party lines, a majority 55% support requiring the government to take a principal and interest on the debt before it pays for other government expenses. support for the proposal is strong among republicans, 65%, independents, 53%. democrat voters are split evanly between favor 46, opposed, 47. clearly we cannot default on our

debt. the consequences of doing so could be very serious. a default would at the very least hinder an already stagnant economic he recovery and in the worst case scenario lead the country back into recession. failure to make a debt payment will increase our borrowing costs and threaten our ability to make any of the other payments we owe. the president and congress must reduce our debt and deficits but we must do so is without increasing taxes. there are bipartisan policies we can enact to reduce wasteful washington spending and preserve social security and medicare for future generations. the ways and means committee has already begun to examine those policies and will continue to do so over the coming months. in the meantime, we must act to make it clear to the american people and the world economy that the u.s. will not default on a debt payment. the legislation before us accomplishes that important goal and i would urge my colleagues to join me in voting

for its passage today. thank you, madam speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want to state the facts here so everybody understands them. we have called this, the speaker has in essence, paying china first and so many others except for social security , come iaries come last next if at all. and here's the reason. of the prioritized debt covered this bill, 47% is foreign owned. and china bondholders are the largest portion of that foreign

ownership. so essentially what this bill says is, ok, let's pay china and the other foreign bondholders first, not american troops, not disabled veterans, not physicians, providers who treat medicare patients, not small businesses holding contract obligations from the united states, school lunch programs secondary, medical research, pell grants, taxpayers due refunds and interestingly other federal trust fund holding treasury bonds, medicare, deposit insurance, etc., etc. that's the fact. that's the fact. so why do this?

well, it said let's do this because of the importance of paying the bonds in terms of our economy and in terms of our bond rating. but let me just say a word about bond rating. here's what fitch has said. and i quote. it is not assured that the treasury would or legally could prioritize debt service over its myriad of other obligations, including social security payments, tax rebates and payments to contractors, employees. arrears on such obligations on such would not do anything from a sovereign rating perspective but very likely prompt downgrade even as debt obligations continued to be met. and it was interested. s&p has already downgraded this. said this, and i quote, still sudden cuts that shave off, say, 6% of the g.d.p. to

spending ratio would cause economic panic and could affect ratings. so why is this being done when a former bush administration economist said the result is a bloody mess or another bush administration official saying, d i quote, prioritization is impossible? is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments in rder to pay off treasury bondholders? so why is this being done? it's not going anywhere in the senate. the president opposes it. i think the reason apparently it's being done is to satisfy some within the republican caucus or maybe to try to

provide some leverage in terms of bargaining with the democrats. this is playing with fire, though. with the economy of this country. those who vote for it, playing with this fire, are going to burn themselves. but i think most significantly, they're going to burn the economy of the united states of america. i've tried to figure out who the pide piper is of this -- pied piper is of this proposition. it's hard to figure it out, but those who follow that pied piper and the republican ranks, those who vote for it, essentially are moving towards the cliff following that pied piper but worse off, it places this country once again and

this economy in danger of going over the cliff. this is not only a mistaken idea, it's really a rotten one. let's vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 15 seconds. since the gentleman raised the question of who holds our debt, this chart shows that the vast majority of our debt is held by americans. that's a fact. 30% of the debt is held by citizens, pension funds, and you go down the list. 2/3 of our debt is held by americans. we need to make sure that americans are paid first. with that i would yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, the chairman of the social security subcommittee, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for three minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, as i meet with my constituents back home, they they're ud and clear concerned about our record debt and deficits. we're nearly $17 trillion in debt. that comes out to about $53,000 per person. my constituents back home get it. they've had to make tough choices to live within their means and they expect washington to do the same. my republican colleagues and i have been committed to getting our fiscal house in order, growing our economy and getting america back to work. in fact, we've passed a budget that balances in 10 years. on the other hand, the president and the senate's

budgets never balance ever. hardworking taxpayers and their children and grandchildren deserve better. we need to leave them a stronger and more secure america, not a mountain of debt. mr. speaker, the bill we are considering today, the full faith and credit act, would be requiring treasury to make good on debt payments. the bill also enables treasury to pay social security benefits to seniors, survivors and those with disabilities and their families. mr. speaker, let me say that again. under this bill, seniors will get their checks. those on disability will get their checks. back in 1996 we passed some legislation to h.r. 807. then social security was getting more in revenues than it was paying out in benefits. so full social security benefits could be paid without

hitting the debt limit. today, there aren't enough revenues to pay social security benefits to. to make up the difference, treasury has to redeem the debt it owes to social security by borrowing from the public. this may cause a small increase in debt because when treasury redeems social security i.o.u.'s, it must pay any interest accrued on that debt. our bill exempts this interest from counting against the debt limit. mr. speaker, according to c.b.o., social security cash shortfall is projected to reach $77 billion this year. over 10 years, social security shortfall will total $1.3 trillion. these cash shortfalls are permanent and are growing each and every year. mr. speaker, in closing, we owe

it to the american people. in fact, we must come together to preserve and protect social security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend, the ranking member. i rise partly in sadness, wholly in disappointment that e are playing this game. how sad. i tell my friend from -- my other friend from michigan, his amendment is sad too. i want to say. it's a device to try to get people to vote for a bill that has no merit by making members ay somehow present in this

bill. well, considering things on this merit. not on this political gamesmanship. mr. speaker, for the second time, house republicans decided to put our country at risk by defaulting on its obligations. they know this bill is not going anywhere. they know the president will veto it, and they know republican economists thinks this bill makes no sense. i won't ask the gentleman who chairs the ways and means committee his real view on this bill. this so-called debt prioritization bill mandates that in the event we hit the debt limit, we pay china first, not our contractors doing business with us, not our federal employees, not veterans. yes, social security is taken care of. not our military. we'll pay china first. that's what this bill says. no major creditor in the -- in this country would have a debt prioritization. ow, the secondary lenders,

yes, they have prioritization. not we'll pay this one first and you second or third or fourth. we'll pay china first, other creditors before we pay our troops, seniors and veterans' benefits. yes, you've made an exemption for social security. not in the original bill, but politically that was too hot to handle so you added social security. just yesterday speaker boehner admitted this bill means the united states will voluntarily act like a bankrupt corporation and pay china before we pay our troops. how sad. how patently political. how transparent that we're trying to give a fig leaf so that we can play around with the national debt. ronald reagan would be deeply disappointed and he expressed that. speaker boehner said those who ave loaned us money, the bondholders get paid first.

same thing here. china gets paid first. this is not a feasible solution to our debt problem, and even republicans recognize this won't work. tony, former bush administration spokesman for economic policy said, and i quote, this is a republican spokesman for the bush administration, prioritization is impossible. is the government really going to be in the position to withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, etc., in order to pay off treasury bondholders? that would be, he said, a political catastrophe. can i have one additional minute? former bush chief economic advisor, keith hennessey, said this. if the u.s. government legally commits to paying someone a benefit or agrees to pay a firm for a good or service, the u.s. government should fulfill that agreement in a timely fashion. to do otherwise is taking the first step to becoming a banana

republic. that's hennessey. not hoyer, not a democrat. that's a bush economic advisor. mr. speaker, we should not be admitting defeat and ranking the losers as this bill would do. instead of choosing to pay china or any other holder of our debt before we pay our troops, and we ought to pay them and we ought to pay them on time. that's not the issue. the issue is the united states of america, the most credit worthy nation on first, ought to pay all its debt in a timely fashion. all. not prioritize. all. across the board. our wounded veterans, the seniors who worked hard to build this country, we should come to a consensus on a big and balanced deal to reduce our deficits, including tax reform, hich the chairman -- playing political motivative games to the credit worthiness of the united states will only risk a downgrade and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan,

mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the full faith and credit act. now, much has been said about how ridiculous it is we find ourselves going through this debt limit routine so darn often. but this limit exists in order to induce this body to reflect on the folly of our mindless borrow and spend practices. . it presents an opportunity for public servants to engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue. and to craft long-term solutions. as we approach the limit for the third time in my 2 1/2 years here, we have an opportunity to work together and finally make our largest programs of government sustainable. we have an opportunity to work together and finally tackle long neglected issues like tax reform

so that jobs and personal incomes can grow more quickly. the full faith and credit act protection advances such opportunities for congress to accomplish big things. it does this simply. by removing the specter of default from the table all together. no one's contemplating default over our nation's obligation. americans will always and forever pay our bills. and the full faith and credit act makes this crystal clear by making default impossible. our support for this act simply cannot and should not be regarded as ideological or partisan. i respectfully call on every one of my good colleagues, republican and democrat, to support this commonsensical bill, to take default off the table, and put the focus squarely on dealing with our real challenges. let's harness this opportunity of an approaching borrowing limit to come together as problem solvers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields

back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. this bill not only contemplates default, it plans for it. default, is default, is default. i now yield a minute and a half to the distinguished former chairman of our committee, mr. rangel of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . rangel: i heard the last speaker, but there's no question in my mind that when they -- the person from the other side said that the republican party's first priority is not the salvation of our country but to stop barack obama, i didn't take him too seriously after the election, i see the campaign continues. and as a little veteran i understand that. -- as a political veteran, i

understand that. let me make it clear what we are doing today. i had a friend that was deeply in debt. he owed so much money that he just knew he couldn't pay all of his creditors. now, it was nowhere near $14 trillion, but it was a lot. the creditors harassed him day in and day out telling him he had to make these payments. finally he got annoyed. he got angry. he called his creditors and told them, if you keep harassing me, ilogical not put your name in the hat because every month i put all of my creditor bills into a hat, but the way you are treating me, harassing me at home, calling the job, your name will not go into the hat. now, that's pretty poor policy, i would think. but if i understand this correctly, we are telling our creditors that certain names

will be in that hat. and other people will not be in that hat. could i have an additional minute? mr. levin: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rangel: what names go into the hat? communist china goes into the hat. iran, venezuela goes into the hat, those -- saudi arabia goes into the hat. russia goes into the hat. who is outside the hat? disabled, and a lot of people that deserve to be considered as creditors to protect full faith and credit are out of the hat. this is bad for my friend. it's worse for our country. and this is not the way those people that we owe money should be treated. america is greater than that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield to the gentleman from tennessee for the purposes of a

unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this legislation and ask unanimous consent to commend chairman camp and mr. mcclintock, and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield five minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had hoped that amid all the controversies that grip congress, certainly we should at least be able to agree that the full faith and credit of the united states should not hang in the balance every time there is a fiscal controversy in washington. i want to thank chairman camp and his ways and means committee for he revisions that make the solution much simpler an more practical than the original draft. madam speaker, this bill simply guarantees that the sovereign debt of the united states government will be paid in full

and on time under any circumstances. most states have had similar provisions to guarantee their debt and their laws and constitutions for again racials -- generations. last year in testimony to the senate, ben bernanke praised the state provisions for maintaining confidence in their bonds. he told our house budget committee that a similar measure at the federal level would help to protect us against the sovereign default, which he called a very high priority. and yet this president and his followers in congress who have taken our nation on the biggest borrowing binge in its history, who have run up more debt than all of its predecessors put together, oppose this commonsense measure to strengthen the credit upon which that debt depends. this bill tells credit markets that even in the event of an impasse on the debt limit their loans to this government are absolutely safe.

the democrats have raised three arguments in opposition. first, the whip just said that guaranteeing the nation's sovereign debt is just an excuse for not paying our other bills. what utter nonsense. i challenge him to name one member of congress who has ever suggested that this measure is an acceptable substitute for not paying our other bills. do they actually suggest that all these other states that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills? on the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations. the second argument we have heard ad nauseam is this bill will pay china before it pays our troops. well, i would remind the

chairman said more than half of our debt are actually held by american. often by american pension funds. china holds just 11%. this measure actually protects americans far more than the chinese. but whether our loans come from china or grandma's pension fund, without the nation's credit we cannot pay our troops or any of our other obligations. we are borrowing a quarter of every dollar that we spend. and under this administration we have amassed a debt that is now larger than our nation's entire economy. our nation's credit now carries a greater strain and burden than it ever has before. this measure strengthens our credit by guaranteeing that our sovereign debt will be paid in full and on time. perhaps the most bizarre argument we have heard by guaranteeing the nation's credit, we actually undermine it and risk another downgrade in our credit rating. after all as the ranking member said, a downgrade followed the

last debt debate in congress. here are the facts. standard & poor's officials have warned for months that congress had to reduce the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion in order to maintain its triple-a credit rating. because of democratic intransigence, this congress could only reduce it by $1.2 trillion. so we lost the rating. facts are indeed stubborn things. but the opponents are correct in one point that several officials did express a concern that the impasse could have caused a default in the nation's sovereign debt. that is precisely what this measure would protect us from in the future. no one advocates that the government delay paying any of our bills. this legislation does no such thing. indeed this legislation protects our ability to pay all of our other bills because paying those bills depends on maintaining the

nation's credit. given the precarious state of principal's finances, disputes are going to happen from time to time. just a few years ago then-senator barack obama vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit sought by the bush administration. when these controversies erupt, as they do in a free society, it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident their loans to the united states are secure. that's what this bill does. for once let us setaside all of this partisan posturing and act in the nation's interest. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. leffy: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want the record to be clear. of the public debt prioritized by this bill, foreign holders owns 22% of hina that.

i now yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, we haven't done anything in this house all week and here we are working on a plan how the government can default on its debts. that's what this is really all about. it reminds me of the derivation of the word bedlam. bedlam was a large mental hospital in the middle of london. it was really called bethlehem, but people locally called it bedlam. this is a policy that came out of bedlam and will create bedlam. if we don't pay our debts, we are going to create problems in our own country as well as in the world economic system. if you want to lose the united

states dollar as the currency used by the world, start by not paying your debts. everybody will say, i only want a dollar. those folks won't pay. that's what you're creating. bedlam here today. urge everyone to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. from the very origins of this country, very beginnings, this country's always made good on sovereign debt. let me be clear what this bill does. it ensures, it makes sure that the united states will never, shall never default on its sovereign debt. what does it not do? well, it's not a solution to the debt problem. we have a serious long-term liability problem in this country. and a failure of my colleagues

on the other side to recognize we have to deal with this without just simply raising taxes ad nauseam is not a solution. we need to come to real solutions so seniors are not left behind on their medicare benefits. and social security is taken care of. what does it not do? it's not a paid sign up first bill. china's holdings are less than 8%. and the ranking member's figures were wrong because he failed to account for the social security trust fund. what we have used are the accurate figures from the u.s. department of treasury. what cost it not do? it does not authorize new spending and new debt. this bill just simply says the united states shall always make good on its sovereign debt. it doesn't provide a solution to the long-term problem. we got to solve those problems. we need to come together and come up with solutions for the long-term liability with medicare and all the other spending programs that are bankrupting this contry.

it's been said that the net of the -- national debt of the united states is a threat to our national security in the long run. we need real long-term solutions and not demagoguery arguments. the argument about a downgrade is simply -- it's clear, the language is very clear, we have seen what the language is in these credit rating agencies as they did this downgrade. it was basically a failure of congress to come together and work with the administration to come up with a real long-term plan. that is the issue. the united states will not default on its debt. this provides an extra tool for treasury. mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. if you want to yield us some time, we'll take it. i now yield a minute and a half to another very distinguished member of our committee, mr. lewis of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from georgia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank my friend, mr. levin, for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act. we are the united states of america and we pay our bills. madam speaker, i cannot believe this body would even entertain or consider a bill that puts the social security checks of 56 million seniors and people after china. how can we justify putting two million american military personnel, many whom are in harm's way, after china? that is not right. that is not fair. as a congress, we can do