they came out and said anyone living within 100 miles of the border and a show on the map where all of michigan is included and all of florida, i mean come it goes on and on. no more fourth amendment rights. >> i do not know the particular reference you are making. i have heard the 100 miles from the border issue brought up. is that what you are referring to? >> they can search your computers and cell phones at any time because they have a blanket warrant. what is really strange is western michigan is included in it. is it the border between indiana and -- >> for anyone who is saying that is outrageous or false is insane. >> it is all across. >> yeah. >> in this case, homeland

security. >> the fourth amendment protects you regardless of where you live in the country. it doesn't matter whether you live near the border or far away from the border. >> but it is coming out of homeland security. >> if homeland security is saying that, they are wrong. >> we have got to hold them accountable. >> yes? >> i want to ask about the patriot act. in your amendments or new legislation, would he get rid the president's ability to have it disappear? >> to have it disappeared? >> indefinitely? >> that would be under that national defense authorization act. >> let me ask you about a senator from california who

wants to redefine what the first amendment says by saying who has free speech rights. >> i think that is wrong to define the first amendment in such a way that it only protects journalists. everyone has first amendment protection. everyone has the right to free speech whether you are a journalist are not. >> she wants to say who is a journalist and who is not a journalist. >> yeah. >> there is a long series of barrages against civil rights. not you. i trust you actually. i do not know why. [laughter] [applause] the white house is bought and paid for. the things they are doing now -- what am i supposed to do when homeland security barges into my house? >> i understand. the culture is changing.

on the amash amendment, you have the white house, democratic leadership, republican leadership, the intelligence community, all sorts of high- level officials saying, do not vote for this amendment. it will be a disaster. still, the majority of democrats and nearly half of the republicans voted for the amendment. aims are changing. it will take a little bit of work. we will need new people in there. the people who have been there for a long time are not getting the message. >> [inaudible] >> that is true. >> hi. i'm representing a libertarian party. we are repairing to have our fest in november. we celebrate michigan residents who have done the most in the name of liberty. you are at the top of our list am especially of the amash amendment.

the topic this year is the impact that the war on terror has had on our personal liberties. something that concerns me that goes even further is the impact that it has on our ability to get the truth about what our government is doing. given that we are now involved in addressing secret threats we secret actions, how do we be sure that when we are told there has been a victory that the threat even existed to begin with? how can you have a responsibility to oversee the executive branch? how can you know whether these threats are credible? >> as i said before, we need better congressional oversight. there are plenty of people in congress who i think are not that interested in bringing out the truth and doing what is right.

but there are a lot of people in congress who are interested in doing what is right. i have a lot of allies that i trust on both sides of the aisle. if we have better congressional oversight, you have more people watching and willing to say something and stand up for what is right. that is a part of the process. the public also needs to have confidence in what we are doing and have the ability to see what is going on. anytime you have secret laws, the public needs to know what the laws are. you cannot have laws that are hidden from the american people in a free country. go ahead. >> [indiscernible]

>> i do not think so. i did not vote for john boehner as speaker. i voted for a man from idaho. but he is the speaker of the house. i will tell you that a lot of people could do a much worse job than john boehner. [laughter] >> who? >> i do not want to name names. one thing about john boehner, whether you agree with him or not, he has been straightforward with us. he has been straightforward with members of congress. we know where he stands on issues. he has not told me that he will do something and then has done something else. he has stuck to his word. i might disagree with the direction he takes, but he sticks to his word. go ahead in the back. >> i arrived late. is the subject. homeland security? >> know. talk about whatever you want. >> with the situation in south

carolina with a government id, what is a government id? second, why haven't you supported obama's jobs bill? >> the first question is about whether -- >> voting rights. the civil rights of 1964, congress had to approve us to be able to vote again. >> i will take a look at that. the issue is one that came up recently.

it is something i would like to take a look at. everyone has a right to vote and that should be protected. that is a critical element of our society. that is something i will take a close look at. the issue of the jobs bill, house republicans passed a number of jobs bills, legislation aimed to boost the economy. those have been taken up i bet senate -- have not been taken up by the senate or president. we want to help the economy by looking at all of the people and how to create a for your economy that everyone -- free economy that everyone can prosper in. >> [indiscernible] >> i wouldn't support doing anything at the federal level. from my perspective, it is a state and local issue.

>> you would support the state? >> unfortunately, i'm not a michigan state legislator. >> i mean another one from michigan. and i think you are a state level. would you support it? >> that is something i am leaving to the state and local officials and not comment on it as a federal official. yes? >> i'm concerned about obamacare. there was an article in the paper i read the other day. yesterday a surgeon informed me because of my age, this could i could qualify for this.

i do not qualify for less invasive and more expensive medical treatment required to correct the serious health problems. anyone over the age of 60 take note -- affordable care beginning to show us its ugly head. the independent -- independent payment advisory board will be making a decision on us. and that is from the irs, who we know is pretty questionable at this time. we expect our governments to try to keep medical costs lower on the backs of those who are most likely to need that same care. no wonder congress and the president exempted themselves from this monstrosity. why is it that the president and congress doesn't have to follow the laws that they make that we have to live by?

not just obamacare, but all of them? [applause] >> everyone should be following the same laws in this country. we should not have a friend laws for different people. -- should not have different laws for different people. congress is not exempted from obamacare. congress and our staff have to go on obamacare. we were booted off our healthcare -- we will be booted off our health care when the new year starts. >> and the president? >> i do not think the president has too. the problem is that we have the white house and their staff and federal employees who do not have to go on to obamacare. they do not have to do the exchanges. but congress members and their staff do have to go on to obamacare.

excuse me? >> adjust the subsidies. -- address the subsidies. >> there is a premium payment that members of congress and their staff get, which is the same they have been getting all along currently as part of our benefits from our employer, which is the government. it is just like any other employer might give her man payments to their employees. we are in an unusual situation. we are getting kicked off our employer's healthcare and getting put onto the exchanges. the question is whether you can get premium payments from your employer if you are kicked onto the exchanges. this would not happen to anyone else. no one would get kicked off other healthcare and onto the exchanges.

there is no change in terms of premium payments you are getting from your employer as a member of congress or your staff. nothing changes there. it stays at it currently is. they're not eligible for tax credits and others that others might be eligible for. >> do you have to pay income tax on your wages? >> yes. [laughter] >> do you pay social security tax? >> yes. >> this question here -- hard- working recipients prudently despairs of his two low-paying jobs with no benefits. this pertains to a lot of people. to lift his spirits, he watches a tape of congressional members going down the capitol steps thursday afternoon after a three-day work session.

they have achieved the american dream -- getting full pay, premium healthcare, office staff, and travels just for part-time work at the capitol. surely one so blessed with think of struggling workers and supported health care for the middle class working poor. the skepticism encompasses him. many congressional members seeking reelection are promising good jobs and less government regulation and speak as examples for that prerequisite. as a doolittle congress, it is

all speculation. -- do little congress, it is all speculation. we are concerned about congress and suspicious of government today. the irs thing is just bonkers. we cannot believe -- we cannot trust the government. i guess that is all i have got to say. >> i think that is all fair. i am skeptical of government as you are. if you have followed my work, you will find that i have more than a healthy dose of skepticism of government, including skepticism of many of my colleagues. [laughter] >> we do have confidence in the work that you do.

>> thank you. go ahead. >> is there any realistic chance that the irs will be fundamentally restructured or go to a flat tax? >> i do not think so in the short run. not because i would not want that, but because i think there is too much push back. members of congress tend to like having a complicated tax code. the more complicated tax code is, the more big corporations and others have to come to them and beg for favors. the more favors they can hand out, the more campaign contributions they get. there is a sense in which it is rigged like that. it will take time. i would support undoing our

income tax to get rid of it completely and replace it with a consumption tax. i think we are a ways away from that. when i was in the state house, i thought about what the state government was doing among which was giving out all sorts of targeted tax breaks and benefits. the more complicated you make the tax code, the more benefits for the wealthy people. yes? >> my question is about immigration reform. i saw in the new yorker yesterday that said people in michigan will have a hard time this season picking apple crops because they will not have enough migrant workers. i was wondering if you would support a bill from the senate or something different to get immigration reform passed? >> i would not support the

senate bill, but i would support immigration reform. it has to have border security, which includes dealing with over stays the some people overstay their visas, you need to have a better legal immigration system so people can come here and become president legally or come here to find work legally. currently, it is hard to come to the u.s. whether it is as a guest worker or if you want to become a resident. it is difficult. we need to improve that system. that is where we tend to get a lot of push back. a lot of democratic colleagues do not want to improve the legal system. they are interested in approving citizenship, but not the legal immigration system. i think the legal immigration system would help with border security. you will likely have less people trying to cross illegally. we need to deal with 11 million

people who are here illegally. no one will deport them. you have to find a way to give them legal status over a long period of time. once they have obtained that, they can be treated like anyone else who is here as a legal resident. if they want to obtain citizenship, they will not go ahead of anyone else. they will be treated like anyone else who came here illegally. this is not a special pass to citizenship. give them the ability to be here legally and then they are treated like everyone else. they're not moved into the front of the line or anything like that. yes? >> a question on gun control. what is your stance on it? and where are we as a government with the gun control situation? executive orders in our risen -- prison -- what type of control do you have against executive orders? people here do not have a voice.

>> on gun control, i am skeptical of federal involvement in gun control. the second amendment is extremely important. it is important as any other part of the constitution. there is a reason it is in place. you have to consider the context of how it was put in place. they want to make sure that the people would be protected and always have the right to defend themselves. it is important that the federal government not infringe upon that right. that is where i stand with the specter gun control.

with the respect executive orders, some executive orders are ok. a lot executive orders have not been ok. they take an old law and interpret that law to provide them with some authority to do something new when congress doesn't want to pass a new law. the white house says, well, we will do it using this old law and reinterpret this law to allow us to do it. that is wrong. that is unconstitutional. we should do what we can to defund those kinds of activities. congress holds the purse strings. we do not have to fund activities that we think are unconstitutional. yes? i think you are the youngest person in the town hall. [laughter] >> i have a question about prism.

i'm on the internet a lot. when i heard about this, i was really mad because the government should not be spying on us. i'm not even sure why anyone second thoughts on this. as is unconstitutional. -- this is unconstitutional. america'sainst what founding fathers have said. >> that is a great question. the prism program is largely classified. there has been some talk about it. i have to be careful with what i

say. the bottom line is, there are too many people in congress right now who are forgetting that there is a constitution that restricts what they do. the point of the constitution is to restrict what the federal government does. theye name of security, are forgetting that their first right or the is to protect liberties. that is why we have a government to ensure that we have liberty as a people. that is what they are forgetting. they are focused solely on the security aspect. they think as long as the nsa or some other agency is stopping bad guys, they can go after collecting information on all sorts of people and have no consequences. of course, there is a huge threat to that. we do not want the government to have this kind of data to use against americans in the future.

>> yeah. also, i'm also worried about, like, all the gay rights stuff. i'm thinking, like, this could be like the racism thing. but it is like the same thing except it is between days and -- gays and non-gays. who cares? does it really matter? [applause] >> that is a great point. i do not believe the government should be involved in deciding who can get married and who cannot. that is not an appropriate role for the government. marriage is a private institution. it is between two people and their personal lives. i'm an orthodox christian. my wife and i do not need the government telling us that we can get married. no one else needs a government telling them that they can get married.

that is up to them. i agree with you. [applause] yes? >> i guess my main question is since congress is supposedly a holding the purse strings of our country, i'm interested in what is going to happen with the so- called affordable care act. what are the chances of congress actually holding the strings on that? >> great question. i think that they should defund it. they shouldn't pass an appropriations bill in september that funds obama care. right now that is the debate. there are republican members in congress who think we should fund obamacare thomas and there are others who think we should

not. i think the law is unconstitutional. i think it will hurt our health care. it will reduce choices. the more regulations you have on the insurance industry, the more you create a monopoly of insurance were a few players control the whole market. what you really want to have is more competent haitian. less regulation on insurance some are types of insurance to be offered and people could decisions for their own lives and what it when the purchase. you also need to find a way to move away from the third-party payer system that we have. we have to move away from that. what you do is you buy insurance and you go to the doctors office. patients and doctors do not know how much a procedure costs. they do not know how much medication costs. there is no incentive that people have right now to keep costs down. if you know everything is

covered by insurance, you will just take it. there ends up being an overusage with a lot of medical care. not with all, but a lot. >> my advice to people before government got involved in this was the fact that you would go to the hospital and have the insurance pay the medical expenses out of your pocket. they always had a little bit pay of their own. as a young man, two of my kids were born without insurance. i paid payments. i paid the whole thing. of course, back then it was only $250. [laughter] act,y, the affordable care i do not want bureaucrats

telling me what services i will qualify for. >> and what kind of insurance you can get. >> that is true. i can imagine what the price will be. i have got medicare right now. but there was money taken out of it to put into the affordable care act. what will that do to my coverage? to be honest, i am scared to death. i have my wife and my family. >> a lot of people are worried about this. i have spoken at a number of town halls. it is the number one issue that comes up. people are concerned about obamacare. i think it is a train wreck. i do not think it will work. we will have to move to something that is more free- market oriented.

we need people to be able to make choices for their own lives and were prices mean something. in the back. go ahead. >> [indiscernible] many folks in this room are seniors. many will have benefited in some manner to preventive services and other screenings that they never would have had before. be grandchildren are able to on their parents insurance that was not there before. i might -- more concerned with how congress cannot work together. why can't both sides fix this? the affordable care act has a lot of good things. it is not great. thanks it. do not spend 40 times trying to vote it down. you are wasting our resources. many seniors are over 60.

they are anxious about it because of that misinformation from both sides. it. don't try to get rid of it. republicans try to stop social security, medicare, medicaid, and a number of things that were similar to this. the affordable care act was based upon massachusetts, governor romney's state, they helped develop the model. it is not all bad. do not try to throw all of it out. you are making a mistake. there are a number of good things in it. except. >> i mentioned a couple. you will find out -- it will not mess you up if you are on medicare.

you will not be messed up by it. we have a help system that is privatized. all of the hospitals are biting each other out -- buying it each other out. that is what is making it so expensive to go to the hospital. >> [inaudible] >> hang on. let's all be respectful. let's all be respect will please. -- respectful please. you cannot lower the cost by mandating everyone to be on the insurance. you cannot do it. everyone mandate that

gets on it and expect prices to go down. it will not go down. both parties are concerned about it. it is not just one sided. it is important to remember when we talked about working together at obamacare was passed with one party passing it. one party basically passed it over the objections of the other party. you will not have any sort of reform that is acceptable to the public when one party decides they will pass it and the other party completely objects to it. that is a serious flaw in the way that it was passed. whether it is immigration reform or health reform, you need some agreement to train the parties on this issue. -- between the parties on these issues. >> i have written to you and have commended you for doing town halls. you are the guy to vote for if i get the chance, and i did. i have only two questions. if you have been in jail for a dui and you got out, does that

take away your voting rights for life? >> i do not think so. have you been in jail for a dui? i wouldn't know. i do not believe it would take away your voting rights. >> i heard it was in another state and has moved to michigan. i have friends who think they cannot come here because it would have to show a voting card. >> i do not think that is true. you could always ask someone on my staff afterwards. >> i will. my next question -- i have one more question. >> [inaudible] >> do you have a question? -- do you have an answer? >> you may vote once you are of incarceration. >> thank you.

if you have a ccw in michigan and plan to drive in other states, what other -- >> then you can get in trouble. in that case, i would not recommend taking that trip. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i know some who did that and went to jail because of it. yes? >> my name is jane wilson. i'm very concerned about something that has been very subtly passed all across the land that affects all of our children. it has not come to the legislature. it came from the department, the state department of education. it is from the u.s. department of education, arnie duncan. it is a federal takeover of our education, including all of our children.

it has -- i am very concerned about this. ofis data collection on all our children and putting them into a national databank with a lot of private information. 415 items on every child. it does not only collecting the data banks, but they are breaking three federal laws. they are going against one of the amendments, which says states are to be controlling education, and they have also changed the family rights and privacy law so that they can collect all of this information.

the purpose of it is to dumb down our children and to indoctrinate them so that they will accept a left-wing idea of our country and our country's history. it is dumbing them down. teachers and parents who do know about it are very concerned. i spoke to a teacher last night at the county fair. very upset with what -- but the thing is, most parents do not know about it. they are the ones who signed us on to this thing that we are a part of. it passed a line that we have never passed before. it takes away any safe from anybody within the state. it has been given control to this consortium. there is no mind to go to if we do not like it or if we want to change it. i think that arne duncan, there needs to be some hearings on him and his activities. i learned yesterday that our

kellogg's on patient has given $400,000 to -- has given $400,000 to -- so they can get information on preschoolers. >> i'm against that. [applause] i do not want the federal government telling our schools what to do. i think that is a bad idea. it is not good for students. education should be something that is handled locally. you should have states competing to

have the best system rather than having one standard that creates problems for the whole country. i'm against that. toshould return our control local families and local governments. >> and indoctrinating ideologies? >> i do not know what the standards are. i cannot comment on that. >> [indiscernible] >> i love that information. thank you. >> yes question -- yes? >> they have thousands of people doing things that are illegal. non-nstance, recruiting eligible voters to vote. and they're being funded by federal taxpayer money. these people must stop. ok, great number of these other

organizations doing the same thing. being funded by federal money. that is the question. >> i do not know. i have not voted for any of those appropriations bills. the appropriation bill i voted for was veterans affairs. the other appropriation bills i have not voted for. so, i couldn't tell you the details of every single appropriation bill. >> there are a bunch of other organizations that these people have gathered. one other thing -- in the past year, i heard the president saying everybody should vote. i do not want anyone to sell them legal ids to vote. vote.

i understand that was even an executive order. just because you are here, people are voting, they are not even here legally. i do not think they can go, but they were voting. that is what i read in the paper. what are we doing about it? >> only citizens should vote. i do not how to address the issue other than that. only people who aren't legal voters with citizenship should vote -- are legal voters with citizenship should vote. have i called on you? >> when we were talking about obamacare, you made a comment

that i heard from many representatives and from senators. we need more competition in the system as opposed to more regulation. the problem is i have never heard anyone explain who is competing against who. as a patient, i'm a user under this system. i can i shop for quality or price. i cannot call of doctors up to find out who will give me the cheapest operation on my arm. i cannot call a fire hospitals

to see who will charge the most for anastasia -- five hospitals to see who will chose the most for anesthetia. who will compete? >> the insurers will. >> the insurance companies? why would he want to trust them to run the entire medical system? [crowd grumbling] >> that is not true. you're trusting the federal government to run the health system. >> but we do not have doctors being employed by the like they do in some countries. most hospitals are private operations. but may not be for-profit, private operations. if you do not have regulations, how would you achieve polity? -- quality? >> you achieve quality through competition. >> competition? >> if there is less regulation, you could have more competition. the more regulation you have, the less competition. as a member of congress, the people who come to me and asked for regulations the most are big corporations. a are constantly in the office

saying, we want regulations put in place. the reason they want it is because they want to limit the competition. they want to drive out small competitors who have fewer employees and do not have the ability to handle the regulations. that way they can monopolize the market. if you have the government saying that insurance has to happen hundred different items, you will have prices go up. that is the only way it works. you have to allow insurance companies to offer all sorts of products. some cheap, some expensive, and let people decide how they want to spend their money. >> before we had obamacare, we had a system. it was being run by the insurance industry. neverortunately, we have had a system where we had the type of freedom to choose and self products -- sell insurance products that are required.

>> what you are saying is that the insurance companies are going to sell hospitals and doctors through their competitive programs how much can be charged and that will lower prices? >> if insurance companies are allowed to compete with each other, you will have better insurance companies that offer better products at a lower price. >> and the doctors and hospitals will except the cut in their pay? >> will you have to have a competitive market on the one way or the other. >> the patients can do it. >> in the interest of time, we will take a few more questions. keep your questions brief. >> all right. i have called on you, right? yeah. let me go back there.

>> representative amash, as someone who has voted for you, i am very pleased with what you have performed in congress. i would like to say that about some of the gop leadership, unfortunately, i cannot. my biggest issue at this point -- there are so many of them -- is not obamacare -- is on obamacare and the upcoming vote to fund or not fund it. nationaling to the discourse, it appears that the republicans are divided as to whether or not they will fund or defund it. argumenta very strong

or a movement toward defending it and dealing with it piecemeal at a later time. iss vote to fund or defund probably the most important and critical of them all. the big issue is will you shut down the federal government? the republicans are being blamed that if they do find it, they will shut down the u.s. government. i would like my voice to be heard. i think you should defund it. if the federal government gets shut down, it will not be the republicans, but the president of the united states. [applause] the gop leadership needs to understand that sometimes the

best defense is a good offense. [applause] >> as i said, i support defunding it. go ahead. >> first off, in the interest of obamacare, i would like to say that no good idea ever came out of being mandated. [laughter] >> i cannot talk about campaign issues at this town hall. let me go in the back. besince obamacare seems to the topic -- >> talk about any topic you want. >> i took my son recently to hospital.

he got bit by a dog. we had to go to two different ones because one would not take him. we watched an entire movie of "cars" before someone saw him. i was watching my son scream and bleed because he got bit by dog. i'm in a situation where i want to buy a book and learn how to do my own stitches so i do not have to deal. [laughter] i wellpoint do we abolish the federal government -- at what point do we abolish the federal government? [laughter] [applause] >> the federal government has an important role. you have to follow what the constitution says. most of those relate to national defense.

that is what the federal government should be focused on, national defense. >> if it is national defense, they are very poor at it. shouldn't we get a new one? [laughter] >> they haven't done a great job of focusing their efforts properly are falling the constitution when it comes to national defense. that is covered in several numerators powers. that should be the priority of the federal government. >> [indiscernible] >> go ahead. >> i'm from battle creek. i would like to bring up a topic of engineering. we are having tons of fine particles spread through the atmosphere.

primarily, i believe -- if you go on the internet and study what is kind of poison does, you will find diseases like alzheimer's and nerve diseases and asthma and things like that. so much of that is going around. i have to think that we are being poisoned rather than having all of these degenerated diseases because we are living. i think there is something going on there. i wanted to bring up that topic. >> is there a question associated with that? >> who decides to aerosol us? yesterday over battle creek, i could have played take cap toe on the sky. there was crosshatch is going every different way. you could watch the material spread out and form clouds. it was supposed to be a lightly cloudy day. it almost looked like it was going to pour down rain. from personal experience, my

lungs started to burn and within five minutes, i put on a mask and a long stopped burning. decidingknow who is this. it is like we do not have any control over anything weather weekend breathed air or any kind of thing. -- whether we can breathe air or any kind of thing. >> [indiscernible] >> yes. i'm a guy who likes to ride around with my windows open. >> people should not pollute the environment without consequences. go ahead. thes it is a key region in area, how concerned are you about egypt right now? and defunding our aid to the area? they do not seem to want it or

our assistance. >> i'm very concerned about our foreign policy. it has been disastrous in the middle east. the government has been sending money to countries that are actively against us. there is total instability. we do not know where the money or weapons are going to. we need to stop meddling in those places. when it comes to places that are facing these types of civil wars, we need to be careful to mind our own business before we get ourselves into something that we do not want to get ourselves into. yes? >> i want to talk about the national debt. armageddont is the

coming down the road. i heard you quote $17 trillion come but really it is $70 trillion. when you look at the budget bill or budget proposal that goes out, including social security, medicare, we are looking at $70 trillion. we have had three quantitative easing's. the bond yield increases, and so does our payment on the national debt. the is our plan for national debt? how will we decrease it? i travel a lot. the indiana toll road -- most the garages in chicago are or around -- are owned by foreign countries. what we do there? >> unfortunately, the

has not had a real plan for the national debt. both parties have ignored it. i have it together and balance budget amendment. it will require the spending levels be no higher than the average tax revenues of the previous few years. it has a smoothing effect. because of the nice way in which it would work, i have had republicans and democrats signed on to it. it had the most to my credit cosponsors of any new balance budget amendment in recent years. it is a new type of proposal. we need to put something like that in place to force congress to get together and work on this issue. you have democrats who do not want to deal with social security, medicare, or medicaid reform. those are big areas of government.

republicans often do not want to do with military spending reform. that is another large area of government. the fact that national defense should be the number one priority does not mean that there is no waste in the pentagon. there is plenty of waste. both sides need to work together and fashion a compromise that deals with our deficit and our debt. you will have to look at all of these areas. i will criticize my own party. there's plenty of criticism on the upper side -- on the other side. there are bills that are going through congress now. all of the appropriations bills come in at the sequester level or less except for one bill -- the defense bill. but comes in above the sequester level. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say you want to cut federal spending and when it comes to defense, you will not cut their. you cannot ignore the law and keep spending. the two sides need to come

together. social security, medicare, medicaid, defense. the fifth-largest area is interest on the debt. if interest rates went up, the debt because him is equivalent to defense spending. you could run into a situation where interest on the debt is -- per year. >> we are selling off our assets. we sold off to foreign countries. we have sold to the chinese. what we're doing quietly is selling off the assets of the united states to the highest bidder. i'm really concerned about that when we have a lot of foreign interest that own america. >> the biggest issue is what the total reserve does.

independentlyey instead of hand to hand like they are supposed to do? a the federal reserve is problem. we have a system where basically [no audio] [applause] being to think you'll for here today. i appreciate it. we will hold more of the town halls. please stay in touch. thanks. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> several live events to tell you about today on c-span2. the national press club hosts a

discussion on the state of the economy. --t include sheila bair guests. and events marking the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. sobor rights and economic equality. speakers include low-wage to workers. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls and "washingtonon journal." our coverage starts with a preview at 6:00 eastern with a debate at 7:00. about 45 minutes, we will discuss north carolina's new voter identification law in light of the supreme court's decision to strike down parts of the voting rights act. perez.st is myrna

o'bryan.teve ♪ tot: good morning, welcome "the washington journal." we are in the waning days of a congressional recess and members of congress are gearing up for this fall's legislative agenda. a question for all of you this morning, what is your message to house and senate lawmakers as they prepare to turn to -- returned to washington next month. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. also send as a tweet, if you go to twitter.com/c-spanwj