military intervention in syria. the obama administration suppose to limit u.s. military intervention. it believes the rebels will not support america's interest if they were to come to power now. this came out to a letter that general dempsey sent. he said the military is clearly taking out the syrian air force and shifting the balance.

michigan republican congressman justin amash held a town hall meeting recently in michigan. he touched on topics like health care and government surveillance. he offered an amendment that would bar the and as a from collecting phone and data records from citizens who are not subject of investigation. the amendment was opposed by speaker john boehner and the white house and ultimately defeated. his town hall back in michigan

lasted about one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> hello, everyone. ben, he is my chief of staff. he does not just work for me. he is primarily in our grand rapids office, and you can find that on my website, and we have a satellite office in battle creek, so if there is something you would like to schedule, you can contact our grand rapids office, and we will make sure we will have someone to meet with you as well. jordanrict director is bush. he is not here today, but he is also a valuable resource. rapids contact the grand office to reach him. please feel free to do so. for a good cause, he is not here today.

he is a great resource, and he can help you with any number of issues. there are telephone town halls from time to time, so if you would like to get on those phone calls, we've let our staff know. you can let us know before you leave, but please let us know because we do those from time to time. that gives you another way to stay in contact, and what we will do is have a phone call that goes out to your house maybe 6:00, 7:00 p.m., and you can get on the line and ask questions, and that is a convenient way for people who may have a more difficult time getting out, so if you cannot make it to a town hall and would like to be involved, that is one way to do it. i also post every vote i take on facebook. i am the only member of congress who does this. of will find an explanation every single vote of mine on

facebook. it is me doing it, not some staff person, so you can contact me directly that way. you do not have to have a facebook account to see the posts. you only need a facebook account if you want to comment. if you are worried about setting up a facebook account, do not worry. havean see everything i posted and explanations. so i will talk to you very briefly about the nsa, and that is something i have been very involved with, trying to rein in the out-of-control nature of what is going on right now with our surveillance programs, and that is something that i have spent, as you have probably

seen from the news, a lot of time doing over the past couple of months. what the nsa has been doing him as has been declassified now, is collecting the phone records of every single person in the united states, regardless of whether you are under suspicion of anything, so, in other seen from the news, a lot of time doing over the past couple words, the nsa has a database, and they actually collect every time you call someone. they collect the call that was made. they tell you which numbers were connected, the duration of the call, and they keep other sorts of what they call metadata on your calls. they have been doing this for quite some time, but it was recently disclosed, and the problem, of course, is they are doing it without any suspicion. it does not matter if you have a connection to a terrorist or not. they decided that they have the authority to gather up everyone's data, and, of course, this violates the fourth amendment.

you cannot simply go around collecting data. the information of all americans in the united states. without any suspicion. so it is something i have been fighting against as a representative for the past couple of months, and a few weeks ago, we had an amendment on the house floor, a defense appropriation bill. 205 members of congress stood up and said we do not approve of the nsa collecting phone records of every single person on the united states without any suspicion. 217 members said they were ok with it. i think the tide is turning and that things are shifting. it is about what the nsa and what the government is doing. nsaugh reports of how the might be sharing information

with the dea and irs, and according to reports, incidentally collecting information, inadvertently collect your information, and then use that information to go after people domestically, and this violates our rule of requiring specific warrants. you cannot have a system where the intelligence agencies, whether it is nsa or any other agency, collects data without a warrant, and then use that, and says, here you go, and prosecute people, and then according to reports, they are covering their tracks, so defense attorneys do not even know where the data came from. so there are a lot of shocking allegations, revelations out there in reports.

one of the things i can tell you is we do not have very much oversight of these programs. courtis a secret fisa that interprets things like the patriot act, and these opinions are not available to members of congress. actfor example, the patriot is a law related to data gathering, and members of congress have a particular interpretation of it when we passed it. it was up for reauthorization. [applause] those who voted yes, they have a particular interpretation of what the patriot act does, and they have been horrified at what they found. the internet is actually being interpreted by that fisa court in a much more expansive way than what they expected, and we would not have known about that

if not for the recent disclosures, because the court opinions that interpret the patriot act are secret, and members of congress, rank-and- file members of congress, do not get access to those. you will have access provided to the intelligence committees. you will have the white house with access, but members of congress do not have access. of course, i represent people, like everyone else represents people, and when i am asked to vote on something, i deserve to have the information about the law that everyone else has. they should not keep most of congress in the dark about what they are voting on, and yet, that is what is happening repeatedly, so i have teamed up with a representative on a bipartisan measure. we do not agree on many things, but we do agree on this. rightse that people's are being violated here.

the constitution is being violated, so we have teamed up with celebrity act, and what the liberty act will do, and this is a bill that has 50 bipartisan cosponsors, about 50, it is getting more every day, and it is split almost evenly between republicans and democrats, and what the liberty act will do will never of the scope of the patriot act, so that the government can only information that actually pertains to a person who is the subject of an investigation under the patriot act, and it would also provide greater access to members of congress to these fisa court can oversee what is going on. right now, we do not. we just do not have the access. now, there are people on the intelligence committee and the white house who will tell you that members of congress get

briefings on this information, and they do receive briefings, but let me tell you how these briefings work. without revealing any of the classified details. you go to a briefing on, say, the patriot act, and it is basically a one-sided affair, where they tell you what the patriot act is and how it is worded, x, y, and z, and then they say, any questions? thewhen they say they have opportunity to raise questions about the secret program, phone records collection program, even if we have the opportunity, why do we ask about it? we do not know about it. it does not make sense to think you are going to as questions about secret programs. am i just going to guess at what the program is? it comes to 20 questions. do you have a secret program? do you have the secret program?

so you would sit there forever, trying to figure out what secret programs they have, because they do not volunteer the information to you, so there is actually no real oversight. the fact that we ask questions is not all of that helpful, because you have to go back to the briefing, and go through almost all of the briefings. briefing after briefing after briefing, finding your question in each briefing so that you can get the answers you need. inause if you do not ask it exactly the right way, you are not going to get the answer. whichr the white house, recently said members of congress received a classified document, it was declassified, and it outlined this phone records collection program, and there was their own white paper, that it actually

indicates that we did not receive that. it says that document in 2009 was shared with the intelligence committees, and both intelligence committees shared with their members, and it talks about the updated document that was released in 2011 and shared with the intelligence committees, and it says they shared it with the members. now, this was in 2011. a large number of republicans in particular were elected in the 2010 elections and just started in 2011, so for that large class of representatives, we never saw that document. and, in fact, the administration white paper hinted that we did not receive the document, so i had my staff actually asked the intelligence committee, and they admitted they did not share the document

with us, so we did not receive the information we needed. a lot of my colleagues, particularly the ones who voted yes on the patriot act, or very upset about this, so there is a lot of work to do. this is not a partisan issue. there are people on both sides of the issue, republicans and democrats, but i know the american people are on one side of this issue. they do not want to be spied on, so with that, i went to open up for questions. yes. >> i do not expect you to answer this in a way that would optimize yourself. whether curious as to or not edward snowden, is that the last name? did edward snowden's action stimulate what is going on with the national security

administration? did it really come out of that? >> we never would have gotten to the point where we had votes on the amash amendment if not for that. yes? >> my question is about homeland security. 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 of the president's ability to have it disappear? >> to have it disappeared? >> indefinitely? >> that would be under that national defense authorization act. a let me ask you about 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? need i said before, we 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. boehner, about john 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. bill,sue of the jobs 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. bywant to help the economy

looking at all of the people 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? a unfortunately, i'm not 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. meterday a surgeon informed 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] followinge should be 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. tax're not eligible for 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 visa 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 respect to 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 has second thoughts on this.

this is unconstitutional. it goes against what america's 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. in the name of security, they 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 purse 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 make 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. >> i sold health insurance, and 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] anyway, the affordable care act, 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. the grandchildren are able to be 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. fix 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. fix 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. fix it. >> 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 health 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. we cannot mandate that everyone 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 that 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 the 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 an answer? >> you may vote once you are out 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. common core -- i am very concerned about this. it is data collection on all of 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 nobody 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 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. we should return our control to 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? >> acron had thousands of people doing things that are illegal. for instance, recruiting non- eligible voters to vote. and they're being funded by federal taxpayer money. these people must stop. ok, great number of these people went to work for 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 show legal ids to vote. they should vote. i understand that was even an executive order. just because you are here, these people are voting, they are not even here legally. i do not think they can vote, 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't 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 government like they do in some countries. most hospitals are private operations. they may not be for-profit, but 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. they 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 have one 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. >> unfortunately, we have never 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 tell 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?

you will 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. in listening to the national discourse, it appears that the republicans are divided as to whether or not they will fund or defund it. there is a very strong argument or a movement toward defending it and dealing with it piecemeal at a later time. this vote to fund or defund is 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. >> since obamacare seems to be the topic -- >> talk about any topic you want. >> i took my son recently to the 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 a 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]

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 geo 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 my lung stopped burning. i do not know who is deciding this. it is like we do not have any control over anything weather we can breathe 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. >> as it is a key region in the 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. i think that is the armageddon coming down the road. i heard you quote $17 trillion 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.

what is our plan for the national debt? how will we decrease it? i travel a lot. the indiana toll road -- most of the garages in chicago are or around -- are owned by foreign countries. what we do there? >> unfortunately, the government 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. it 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 500 billion 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 federal reserve does. >> how come they independently instead of hand to hand like they are supposed to do? >> the federal reserve is a problem. we have a system where basically one person can decide the money supply for the world. that is a problem.

shall we wrap it up? all right. i want to think you'll for being 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] >> thank you. sure. let me get that.

news,ning to military bradley manning, the army private who leaked documents to 35ileaks was sentenced to years in prison for three kinds -- crimes. prosecutors had asked for 60 years. his defense asked for no more than 25. andl groups gathered supporters say they are getting ready for appeals. today, live events on the c-span networks. here on c-span, the new york city mayors debate. that preview is at 6:00 p.m.

before the debate itself. network,mpanion economic inequality and the working poor. we will look at that with the good jobs asian -- jobs nation coalition on c-span two. >> tonight on the encore presentation of "first ladies" -- was expecting to nominate someone else to be the candidate, so she had no idea people would show up at her home and property. when they started to show up on the property, that many people, unexpected, uninvited, they started to cause a lot of damage. we know she was a gracious host to people.

she would often greet them in the front hallway and offer them what she called standing refreshment, which meant she was gracious, offer them a cold glass of water, the conspicuously no chair to sit in because she did not want them to overstay their welcome. >> the encore presentation of "first ladies" tonight on c- span. >> let's begin with james baldwin. what brought you to the march on washington? >> i could say the fact that i was born a negro in this country, and more concretely, i felt there was no way for me not to be involved what is presently the most significant, important, freed demonstration to americans that has ever happened in this country. >> up until very recently, i

expressed my support of civil rights by talking about it at cocktail parties, i am afraid, but like many americans, this summer, i could no longer pay only lip service to a cause that was so urgently right in a time that is so urgently now. >> sunday, the 50th anniversary of the march on washington with historic and contemporary discussions, archival films, a visit to the national portrait gallery, a theater performance and firsthand accounts of the day starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern as part of "american history" tv every weekend on c- span3. now, sequestration and two district court justices that spoke out against it at any event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the criminal

justice act, which secured the sixth amendment right to counsel in federal courts. this program runs about one hour, 35 minutes. -- 25 minutes. >> all right. thank you very much. i am the law librarian of congress and i want to welcome all of you to the james madison memorial building of the library of congress to kick off this the-long celebration of 50th anniversary of the criminal justice act. is delighted to be joining with the criminal law section of the federal bar association to sponsor this event today. for those of you that might not know, the law library is in this building but chase -- traces roots to an act of congress that

created the law department in the greater library of congress. over the last 181 years, the law library has grown to be the world's largest law library. our collections and services are not only the primary legal research source for congress in u.s., foreign, comparative and international law, but also are a major source for illegal research, -- legal research, reference source for the u.s. government and legal communities. part of our mission is to sustain and preserve a universal collection of wall for future generations. at the end of the program, we will highlight some of our rare materials from more than 60,000 rare items in the library collection. additionally, the law library of congress hosts a variety of programs that promote knowledge and understanding of global

legal issues and i want to highlight a couple upcoming events that might be of interest to you. opening next week on wednesday, august 28, the law library is: a six-month-osting long exhibition titled "a day like no other," commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. in celebration of constitution day on september 17, we will host the university of been -- virginia law professor for a lecture called "how the constitution changes -- social and political aspects of the law." onseptember 30, the program demography, technology and i'm in a justice. a professor will be -- criminal justice. a professor will be presenting a new paper to us.

i hope you enjoyed the at,cussion today, and th along with a glimpse of rare materials will inspire you to visit the library of congress. i want to turn the program over to jeffrey, who introduced today's program. -- who will introduce today's program. thank you. >> thank you very much, david, for that welcome and for the library's support of this program. i am the chair of the federal bar association's criminal law section. welcome to all of you, and thank you for attending today's event that marks the beginning of the past,ong look at the present and future of the criminal justice act of 1964. let me extend a special thank you to today's distinguished speakers and participating organizations -- the american

bar associations criminal justice section, the national legal aid and defense association, in why you school of law and the constitution project. we look forward to further programming with these and other interested organizations. u.s. c, the18 criminal justice act divides compensation for attorneys and hunting for experts and service -- funding were experts and .ervice providers funding supports a more meaningful right to counsel, which has important effects in at least three domains. the first, and for every lawyer appointed, the most fundamental, authorization of

the legal profession. this includes the quality of ,ustice each person receives helping to ensure the sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary. a second function is to hold the economy accountable, to test assertions and ensure it is playing by the rules, meeting legal obligations before using powers to deprive an individual of life, liberty or property. goal is to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the rule of law. the president's recent remarks to the republic that proposed reform of the federal security isrt "just trust us" insufficient to the rule of law. i am proud to introduce our

first speaker. assistant public defender from 1993 to 1996. he was detailed as special counsel to the united states 70 commission in washington dc. at the puertorked rico department of justice, was the solicitor general of puerto rico, and he was appointed the magistrate judge the district of rodrigo. 2006, he was sworn in as united states district judge for the district of puerto rico. in addition to his day job, which keeps them very busy, he has been a leader in the administration of justice, serving as the president of the puerto rico chapter of the federal bar association. he continues national leadership in the federal bar association

where he will be sworn in as president at the annual convention in san juan, puerto rico. with that, welcome the judge. [applause] >> good afternoon to all. thank you. i am honored to be here both as a member of the federal judiciary, and this incoming president of the federal bar association. as the united states district judge, eyewitness firsthand the need for adequate representation for criminal defendants in my courtroom. it is almost unbelievable that the system of justice could operate without qualified counsel, but that is the system we had prior to the criminal justice act of 1960 -- 1964. before the passage, lawyers

receive no compensation for their work. they receive no funding for investigators, paralegals, experts or other service providers. they did not receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket transfers,ch as copies of documents or case- related travel. this was the case despite the bill of rights guarantee to the assistance of counsel is constitution,he and even before that in the federal judiciary act of 1789, which also contained a federal right to counsel provision. it has been a tradition since our nations rounding and in contrast to english law that a defendant in a criminal case as the right to a lawyer to assist him or her, this right to counsel contained a critical weakness -- the accused lack the resources to hire a lawyer was generally out of luck. to the court, or even those two

ordinary means, the right to counsel was often an empty promise. this began to change in the 1930s with a series of landmark cases. in 1932, the united states supreme court ruled in powell versus alabama that the failure of the state to provide counsel to an illiterate defendant facing the death of the violated the due process clause. later, in 1938, the supreme court decided the case where two defendants were u.s. marines on leaving charleston, south carolina, and they were charged with using and possessing counterfeit bills. a were brought to the federal district court, given notice of the indictment, arraigned, and sentenced to four and a half years each in prison, but this incredibly all caps and in one single day, and all -- incredibly all happened in one single day without the

assistance of counsel. black the case of hugo reversed and justice black stressed the right to counsel was necessary to ensure rights of life and liberty. the court also held that the provision of defense counsel was a prerequisite to a federal court's authority. following the decision, judy -- the judicial conference of the united states, as well as the attorney general and other knowledgeable observers, called for the attachment of a federal defender system is the best way to provide that right. many bills were introduced in congress. hearings were held. reports written, but nothing past during the 1940s -- 1940's and 1950's. hadlawyers were not paid, no investigators or service providers, and were not

reimbursed for expenses. as you can imagine, defendants did not always see the adequate representation under these circumstances. james bennett, director of the federal bureau of reasons from 1937 until 1964 wrote that the most competent lawyers avoided common a practice and judges had few lawyers to choose from when assigning counsel to poor or indigent defendants. the registration was so low that many defendants refused the assigned lawyer for fear that the assigned lawyer would do more harm than good. in an ironic twist of history, while u.s. citizens lack the right to meaningful counsel in their own federal courts here in our nation, the nuremberg trials of major nazi war criminals began in november of 1945, and the major work from else had compensated -- were criminals

had compensated counsel. when robert kennedy assumed the role, one of his first rights was to establish a committee to study the counsel in the federal courts. president john f. kennedy in his state of the union address on january 14, 1963, asserted that the right to competent counsel must be assured to every man a republican senator introduced legislation which had been championing for several sessions to provide for defense counsel in the federal courts and the senate passed it. the house also passed a similar bill. presidentconference, johnson signed the bill into law in 1964. commentedcholar

ministration, the it is possible the act will become recognized and ranked as one of the major legislative achievements in a decade. after further study, the system was created by amendment to the criminal justice act in 1970. that amendment was cosponsored by senators ted kennedy and barry goldwater. it paved the way for the system we have today. a panel of private attorneys compensated hourly or in cases where capacity or where there are multiple defendants. originally the crimina act provided compensation not to exceed $15 per hour in court and

$10 per hour out of court. this throughout the years has changed for the benefit of the system. the current rate is $125 for in court our. approximate $180 per hour in capital cases. case maximums have also increased. itare allowed if we justify to allow payments above the maximum. in order to promote parity, defenders earn salaries comparable to u.s. attorneys as well. now approaching the 50 year anniversary of the criminal justice act, we look to the purpose of the right to counsel, the promise of equal justice under law.

as well as a federal district judge and an assistant federal defender, i have seen this thomas fulfilled every single day in my court. i know we have some federal district judges here. from the moment of initial appearance, that promise is fulfilled. very few criminal defendants can afford counsel. indicted, notere a five percent of us would have to go with a panel attorney. it cost that much to represent an individual in federal court. that is where the federal defender comes into play. they give every defendant in our nation the same top-notch, high- caliber legal representation that even the wealthiest defendant can afford.

the prosecutor cannot represent the people of the united states if the individual he is charging cannot defend themselves at every stage of the proceeding. system where most defendants entered guilty pleas and mostar by way of plea agreement, the united states attorney could not negotiate with defendants or obtain the operations of many of these defendants but for the representation or criminal justice act representation. the constitution requires such equal balance. harshderal system is insofar as penalties are concerned. counsel appointed under the criminal justice act are necessary for effective trial

and just as important sentencing advocacy. the judges have to sentence as mandated by the congress. on behalf of the bar association, our organization's mission is to strengthen the legal system and administration of justice by serving the interest of the practitioner public and private and the public they serve. i want to say with pride and honor that the federal bar association and each of its members fully support the criminal justice act and its purpose in every sense. at this time many defenders have

already reduced a percentage of their staff and are looking at further reductions possibly this fall. the our association testified before the senate and joins in one the voices to caution congress about the nefarious reductions that cj funding will have. but also on prosecutors who may find themselves unable to prosecute a defendant without representation. or a defendant may not be able to obtain the funds to hire an investigator or to do collateral investigations or other matters that are necessary in a criminal case. courts would not be able to dispense justice as the constitution directs. our criminal justice system as we now know will simply collapse

without the cja. today is a moment of celebration. i look forward to an informed discussion of the right to counsel and its present and future during this joint program on the cj at 50. i want to mention that next year is important the cost is the anniversary of the civil rights act. important acts. thank you and thank you for the invitation. [applause] >> let's introduce our next speeker, jamie hawk. afternoon. i am an assistant federal defender here on assignment in

d.c. pleasure to introduce the president of the american bar association. he was sworn in at the annual meeting just last week in san francisco. we are honored that his first major speech here in the united states following his travel this past weekend to canada to make remarks at the canadian bar association meeting is on the issue of funding federal indigent defense. that theppreciated is president -- in his address last monday, he highlighted this issue as one of the most pressing facing the legal profession today. the president has been a leader years bothfor many

within the world justice projects and with the council on foreign relations. he is a partner in a new york office of sullivan and rooster. is my honor to introduce him today. [applause] >> good afternoon. .he criminal justice act at 50 let's start with congress. we have heard some of the brave steps they took in the past on this important set of issues. how can some of our current legislators be so blind to the damage they are causing by their current failure to provide adequate funding to courts? two sides to the equation. but not here.

that is no excuse acceptable under our constitution for the cuts being made to our judicial system and to our public defender program. talked in severn cisco with our house of delegates about a number of important legal issues facing our country, from gun violence to immigration, to legal education. all of those are tough issues. the most immediate issue for the american legal profession is the man is that washington's across the board sequestration is rts.ing for our cou reduction in the federal judiciary budget for fy 2013 has

resulted in a series cut to the federalof high quality defender officers around the country. it has forced the layoffs of many experienced layers -- law indigent represent defendants. i think this is a deep embarrassment for a nation founded on the rule of law. it appears the situation is about to get worse. another round of cuts over roughly 14% starting october 1. these problems for the federal courts mirror the problems that have existed in our state court system for number of years. they affect the justice that americans receive an air contrary to what the constitution requires.

my first act was to send an e- mail to all 400,000 members asking their assistance in educating congress, members of congress about the adverse effects that sequestration is having on our federal courts. individually to urge their representatives to and act an appropriation for the federal judiciary that restores funding cuts and assures access to justice. the message is a simple one. our federal courts must be able to plan for and execute their essential constitutional and statutory functions in a fair, efficient, and timely manner. cuts in funding are resulting in the slower processing of

harmnals, delays in which individuals and corporations will worsen and become more widespread. the longer that sequestration last across the country. this is a situation that demands that congress act now. no more roadblocks and no more stalemate. that is what our constitution requires. so now that i've vented a little bit, i want to thank all the organizations participating in this event for including us in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the passage of the criminal justice act of 1964. there is much work to be done through all the parts of the aba want to participate in this effort and

want to work with all of you to make sure the result is a good and a fair one and the right one for our country. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, jim. now i would like to recognize one of our many special guests that we have attending today. blakect judge catherine has been a district judge since 1995. prior to that she was a magistrate judge for the district of maryland and prior to that she was an assistant u.s. attorney and acting u.s. attorney for the district of maryland from 1985 until 1986. currently judge blake serves as chair of the judicial conference of the united states. the committee acts as a board of

helps guide as such the program in terms of all the policy decisions that need to be made. i would like to recognize judge blake and invite her to make a brief remark, if she would. [applause] you.ank thank you. it is a pleasure and honor to be here to help mark the 50th anniversary of the criminal justice act. i want to thank the library of congress and the law library and for hosting this and all the speakers and the organizations that are here sponsoring and cosponsoring this and have done so much to advance the cause of indigent defense, and thank in particular a new president of for those figures

remarks and what he will be doing this year. i am currently a u.s. district judge. i share those experiences as a federal trial judge and see the defense system at work every day. prior experience in the u.s. attorney's office. i join the committee in october of 2010 and was appointed in october of 2012, just in time for the worst budget crisis that has faced the judiciary in general, at least that i can remember. as many of you know and has been referred to, the reduced spending level that was approved by congress for fy 13 combined with sequestration resulted in approximately a 10% cut in federal defender budgets that all have to be absorbed in the

last seven months of the fiscal year. that required reductions in staff as well as less visible but nonetheless damaging cost- cutting measures such as cancellation of training and reduced amounts for the expert services that are so important. 14 arespects for fy equally bleak. we prepare for the likelihood of the continuing resolution rather than a budget. further to prevent unsustainable damage to the defenders, the executive committee authorized a temporary emergency reduction in panel $15, as hourly rates of well as a deferral of the payments for fy 14 into fy 15 for as much as four weeks.

defendant will be held to their staffing levels which means they will continue to be underfunded by as much as 10% but they will not face the worse case scenario of 20% or more in their budget. none of these measures are good options. all percent the real prospect of a diminution of the quality of representation. fear that some of our best and most experienced lawyers will leave the defender officers or resign from the panels in frustration at not being given the funding that is needed. i am speaking as a former prosecutor. i understand the importance of providing skilled, smart dedicated lawyers to have the resources to match the department of justice when it

brings a serious charge to a citizen that he cannot afford to hire counsel. the impact of these budget cuts is hard in human terms on lawyers who face layoffs and furloughs. the effects on their clients is more important and are mandate to provide an effective defense. and lawyers are overworked cannot build the relationship of trust or do not have the funds to hire an investigator or expert so they can develop the facts and knowledgeably advise their clients on the best court of action. what can be done? recognizing the many difficult issues facing the country. will be working

very hard to obtain increased funding from congress, where i do believe there is bipartisan recognition. we welcome all of your support in that effort. we depend on friends like so many of you here today. we appreciate tremendously the willingness of our defenders to continue to provide the best representation they can manage under difficult circumstances on this 50th anniversary of the criminal justice act. from theart outstanding efficacy that has been demonstrated by the defense community. they are not shy about standing up for their clients. with support from groups like those here today, i am confident

that they will prevail and a thank you for giving me the opportunity for making a few remarks. [applause] >> thank you, judge blake, for your service and for those comments. i know that many in leadership wereave no idea what they getting into when they signed on for it. we are happy to have you here. we have a few folks take a seat at the table. do we have david? there he is. great. what we have next on the agenda at is an expert panel. each of these individuals has dedicated their career to the principles of the right to counsel to the principal of

equal justice for all. i am going to give you a brief in reduction and biography. extensiveure of their careers and experience, i will have to debrief and leave out a lot. i would like to introduce norman left. on the far they advance the mission of the nation's criminal defense bar to ensure due process for all. orman practiced law for 28 years. he was a criminal defense lawyer throughout his career. he is a recognized leader of the

organized bar a spokesperson on behalf of reform and we are proud to have them here today. next is mr. thomas giuliani. he is counsel to the justice center at new york university's school of law. he works with defenders temperament holistic practices to secure the right to counsel which can reduce mass incarceration. pretty much everything to do with the defense function, he has had a lot to do with it. he is director of a network servedat the -- he also a decade at the neighborhood defender services of harlem and works to train defenders as well. we are happy to have thomas here. next we have miss kate clark.

she works at the administrative office at the united states courts. she served as director of as aegic services consultant on leadership and management issues for nonprofits . left mr. davidmy patten, attorney in chief for the defenders of new york, where he served since july of 2011. he worked at the federal defenders in new york as a trial attorney in the manhattan office. he served as adjunct professor at the nyu school of law and the university of alabama, and he is also on faculty at a nonprofit organization dedicated to the

training of new public defenders. that's welcome our panel. [applause] and to build on the introduction of the history of this program and the right to counsel in federal court, but the current challenges facing us today, i would like to turn first to david patten and described to us --had and described what is occurring in his office. >> thank you, jeff. thank you for putting together this program. i have to say in this 50th year have been quite a number of events celebrating the work of public defenders. has made me nostalgic for the days when we just got scorn and money. we appreciate the appreciation.

i want to briefly describe the work that we do on a day-to-day basis. without an understanding of that, it is hard to understand why these cuts are so devastating and tragic for clients and for all of us. defendersfederal office for new york for the southern and eastern districts of new york. that covers all of new york city, long island, and five counties north of the city. we have a total of 38 lawyers. that compares to roughly 300 federal prosecutors in that same area, not to mention countless state, local, law enforcement .ersonnel, agents, civilians vastlybest day, we are outgunned. we do not have parity in our

system. when we start talking about 10% reductions to our budget and in our office a 50% reduction in staff and the remaining staff taking three weeks of furlough any, we have gone well past cuts that are reasonable or manageable to our program. that is where we find ourselves today. i thought i would share two stories about our clients that maybe illustrate why this is so damaging. the first is a case we handle before sequestration took effect. i will refer to our client as justin rodriguez. he was charged with the robbery of a grocery store in the bronx. he was arrested three days later based on eyewitness testimony. he asserted his innocence.

his assertions of innocence do not carry them very far with the police and prosecutors. that are not stop our attorney on the case and our investigators who dug in and developed all kinds of flaws about when it happen. presented to them but they were unmoved. we engaged in pre-motion activity and they filed a large 30 page brief with dozens of exhibits asserting how sure they were of the reliability of the identifications, just how guilty our client was and the fact that he was facing north of 20 years in jail. brief, withpelling the exception that it was wrong. we know that because our investigator after countless

efforts of trying to piece together where our client might've been that day came upon a furniture store where client and his wife returned a piece of furniture for their young daughter. because they got there in time, the surveillance video was still available and showed our client was there at the time of the robbery and nowhere near the grocery store. the government then dismissed the case. i do not know that outcome happens this year. i didn't know our investigators get their in place to obtain a video. if we don't have that video, you would never know about mr. rodriguez. i am fairly often he would have been convicted. he probably would have pled guilty because he was facing so much time. my guess is he would've taken a 10-yearffer -- a

offer. them a talk about a case we currently have in the office. here i will use our clients real his name is wilfredo santiago. he is 28 years old. five years ago he was a corporate and that ring core, serving in iraq. at that time, he had been a marine for five years since he was 18 years old. according to the government, in 2008, he accidentally shot a fellow soldier. there is no allegation that the shooting was intentional. at the time, the military investigated the case. there was an iraqi witness and fellow soldiers. they decided not to pursue court-martial proceedings.

flash forward five years, he is was honorably and discharged from the marines. he is married with a one year old a doctor and he is in college in the bronx with a 3.9 gpa ready to become a teacher and he gets a knock on the door. are undertiago, you arrest for the reckless assault concerning a shooting in 2008, 5 years ago in iraq along with some counts relating to false statements back then. literallywitnesses all over the world. former serviceman colleagues who are across the country. there are iraq you witnesses. officet have money in my to send investigators around the world to talk to witnesses in this case. we are in the process -- we have filed over 50 pages worth of briefs relating to his due

process challenges to the fact that the government waited five years to bring these charges. toply damaging his ability mount a defense. we will have hearings in the fall. i do not know how it will turn out, but we have three options. we can tell the judge we need to get off this case because we cannot afford to properly defend him. the we do not do investigation that needs to be done which we simply won't do. or three, we can ask a judge to appoint a private attorney who will seek reimbursement from the federal government for all of the investigation costs involved in the case. eitherions involve spending more money than we would spend on the case or not doing our jobs. they are equally absurd options. i will and there, but i want to say this. clients areur saints. not all of our clients are praise, necessarily.

but they are all, like every one of us in this room, complicated human beings. of substanceause abuse. sometit is mental illness. other times because of more mundane reasons that all of our lives are complicated. simple regrets or failed backgrounds. get up every day and stand by the clients. they stand by complicated human beings caught up in a terrible moment in their lives and they fight for them. they thereby fight for all of us and we ought to be supporting them. thank you. [applause] >> you can all see why david patten is the defender in new

york. if you were charged for your daughter or son were charged, would you say i got a public defender? you would say, inc. god i got a public defender who can speak like this to the issues. god i got a public defender who can speak like this to the issues. the underfunding of the state in terms ofribed his critique of us not living up to our obligations all the time for the provision of the right to counsel has been playing out. thomas like to turn to about what happens when you start a defense function. >> thank you.

it is sad and it is difficult. it is also a little funny to hear the federal system now having to talk about suffering under the lack of funding. me.e is a very mean part in i was a public defender in new york city for 10 years. there is a man on my shoulder who laughs and says, welcome to my house. we did for lows. the third year we had a 30% cut. we had southern attorneys accounting. this is what we do everyday, all day. this is what we do to poor people. -- we mentioned a minute ago about attorneys not being resident at the first appearance . someone said about federal offenders being present. present all the way

through. that is not the nuance for our system. processed ande never see the defender at all. it is not right. the state system is the main system by which we put people in cages in this country. it is to now be in the same boat. for too long we traveled separately. called thework community-oriented defender network. defensetate-level service providers. focused on really changing the narrative. one of the things that we see and we are saying it's a little of larger is the consequence what happens when you hate entire groups of people.

this criminal justice system has been aimed at the adult black male. it has now expanded to include all poor people, all immigrant people, all people with mental health -- we are the nations largest mental health service provider. has gotten out of control. the more out-of-control it gets, the more friends i get. i am happy we have found a common cause and i hope we will continue these discussions. i appreciate reaching out because state defenders have a lot to tell federal defenders about how you do something with nothing. said, i promised myself i'm not going to curse, that is probably not going to happen if you ask me a question about the system. the fact is, and i understand the praise that we give to the constitution. i understand this is a pretty

decent system in writing. it is a horrid system in reality. it was never what it should be. we have never done right by poor people in this country and in this criminal justice system. we are not even close. the truth of it is, if i got arrested right now and charged with a federal crime, if i could not get the chief of the defender office, i would go ahead and mortgage my house and get myself a private guy who has five cases this year, only one of which went to trial. that is what would happen. i am not saying this as a hypothetical. if you want to see people run from their criminal justice system and not eat in their own restaurant, watch a judge, a prosecutor, watch a defender have a loved one get a case. at the first thing we do is get out of the system however we can. we want the highest level person. i want what you want.

to the judgesking and other people in the legislature about the funding, that is another issue we talk about, i give the example. i would get out of the system, that is a shame. them, is it all right for your children to get out of the system, why is it all right for mine to be stuck in it? the constitution does not say, unless you do not have money. unless we don't like your community, you get justice. it says, you get justice. we have never funded the system appropriately. what we need is more allies to press this case. the prosecutor's face shortfalls. the reason they don't face the same as us is they hold up pictures of dead babies. they hold up pictures of terrorism. they say, this is what will happen if you don't keep our funding. what happens -- and this is why i am here -- what happens when

you don't fund the defense process? one of the things that happens and we have touched on it already, but i don't think hard enough -- innocent people go to prison. that is a statement. everyone can agree with us. we know what happens in american prison. right? if you are taken down the he will bepect, considered a violent felon. he will be housed a violent felon. victimikely to become a of sexual assault. his family members are more likely to go to prison statistically, especially if he has a son. member, he did not do anything more than you did. check on the system. we are not a sporadic check on the system. they case when it comes in

door looks like his case. every one of them. if you do not have investigators and social workers when you talk about mental health, you do not know which one is which. he came in looking the same as every one of my clients. i did not do it, i don't know why they said i did it, i don't know what they are talking about. that is what he said when he started, right? figure ite have to out. if you do not have an investigator, what do you do? nothing. if you do not have the resources, what do you do? nothing. that is what will happen in this case if this person does not get better representation. have satnders would down with him and spent the three hours that investigators should have spent doing work convincing him to take those 10 years and they would have gone at him hard. they would talk to him the same way i do. i have are presented 10,000 clients over the course of my career and as a supervisor 15 house and directly.

-- 15,000 directly. 20 is less than 10. did i say 20 is less than 10? 10 is less than 20. you can see a daughter graduate from college or you can see her when she is in her 30's. you can see your family by the time your child still remembers who you are to have a one-year- old, or you can see them where they don't ever know you are in their lives. youe are the conversations have to have because the reality imposed upon us by a lack of resources is we must assess cases. -- we must process cases. all convictions are obtained by police. i think it is actually 94%. you can get even higher. pleased that are

taken after hearings. takenare pleased that are instead of testimony, instead of getting information. i am not trying to pick on prosecutors today. but it is a routine by practice. youll give you a chance if don't make me work. if i don't have to do to discovery and to turn over information, i will give you this number. if i have to work, the number goes up. constitution, i understand that i am supposed to work. this case is supposed to be what , not whatter work happens instead of it. this is interesting and that i will stop. 50th, as we know, this is the march on washington's 50th. it is interesting for this community who cares area that there is a letter from a birmingham jail's 50th.

if you remember that letter, there are two groups of people he singles out as being problematic. is a social justice issue, not as a legal issue. he singles out moderate whites and comfortable negroes. what he said about moderate whites, he compared them to the klan and compared them negatively. he said it is be will during when your friends are doing things behind you that hurt you. here is our friends are hurting us sometimes and the negotiations we have to go through to fight for the right to counsel. people who are supposedly on my side and say, but he did it, -- didn't he? well, these people don't deserve service. if i have to cut through that to

than i am bad guy, already in trouble. we have to be much more vigorous and willing to sacrifice. one of the things i will do is try to get put in jail in the next couple of years fighting counsel.ight to we have to say no to some of this. there is a point where if you have to go forward, some attorney has to say, no. it is not our job to make the system smoother. it is our job to see justice and justice is a difficult aim to seek. some of us will have to step up and say no. the other thing, as a comfortable negro, i have to be more vigorous. this is an issue of race. i have to say that to every room and at every point of time i can say it whether or not we like to hear it -- actually, because we don't to hear it. we have to acknowledge it.

it is part of why we are here. onn you think of the war drugs, you see a black guy. i know you do. if you say you don't, i know you are lying. when we talk about super predators, you see a black man again. you say you don't, i know you do. .e talk about urban poverty while we are here, we have to talk about why certain communities of this way and certain down to. -- certain do not. that being said, i am willing to take questions and i promise you i will curse if you ask me the right question. [laughter] [applause] >> we have heard david describe what a good defense could look what a defense that might be a solid defense will not look like if it is not funded.

you have heard thomas described a system where that is totally and also challenged us with some of the broader issues we have to face. in 50 years of the criminal justice act, we are having to discussions. describing and reeducating all of ourselves about what the right to counsel means and some of the lessons that maybe we have forgotten. and what an effective right to counsel means. i think those of us in the criminal defense community is areing it on our selves and we doing the best we can and living up to our moral requirements. i think the attorney general in

his speech at the american bar association last week invites all of us to have some of these discussions. representation function and the right to counsel is definitely part of that. with that being said, i would like to invite kate kark to speak to us as a person who is trying to support the great work that david is doing to challenge and hopefully mitigate some of the difficulties that thomas is describing to try to build a program that is meaningful and addresses some of these issues. >> the stories are powerful. the people are real. the impact on lives, it is not about the other. it is an impact on all of us. the things we believe most define us often turn out to be the subject of challenge. as a people, and as a country. vast as ourss a

established practices that seem to be zoned all too often to prove more tenuous than once might have appeared. societies passed down their institutions through a kind of social chromosome. the question before us along the andis whether the judiciary the right to counsel in particular no longer occupies a prominent secure gene in our national dna. adviser recently said to me as i was bemoaning the right to sequestration in my new counsel which i do every day as , i managed the federal

defenders and the panel attorneys and our office of defender services within the judiciary. we are under siege, all of us. i said to him, one morning, early, maybe the country doesn't find the right to counsel for those who cannot afford to hire counsel a necessary expenditure anymore. he said, simply, it may no longer be part of our democratic dna. have you ever thought about that? up him upd all fired but it is the sixth amendment. it is a fundamental strand of our constitution. it is not negotiable. responded, you have seen considerable indifference at the state level. and now, perhaps, it is hitting the federal public defense.

nobody is going to be against it, but to what extent are they willing to sacrifice to provide for it? era, the this current country simply cannot afford first class counsel as a right anymore. maybe the country doesn't believe it is a high priority and that important anymore. maybe, they have to be re- convinced. it is clear from the stories you've heard that's of the right to counsel and the judiciary are being threatened. it is not being threatened by people of ill will. it is being threatened by events . evidence have to be a dressed less sweet air rep ugly -- irreparably damaged the thing

that makes us different and singular as a country. in this situation of sequester, in this era restates our markings, not celebrating gideon's 50th, bemoaning gideon's 50th, if this is the clarion the trumpets didion once sounded, what does it say about the rule of law and all the foundations of our country and our justice system. this is the big question we need to be asking ourselves. does every generation have to reclaim and re-a certain the legacy of social justice and constitutional protection? is the dna of our six amendment subject to mutations over time? alas, the answer is yes. so, what do we have to do? you have heard the stories.

you have heard the impact. we must reclaim it. .e must reignite a commitment a commitment to the judiciary and a commitment to the rule of law through the sixth amendment. wouldare three things i note that we need to do to reignite. we need you, committed people. committed people who seek the judiciary and the sixth amendment as the dna of our constitutional democracy. a vocal commitment, like the powerful words you have heard here today. have a dialogue, question and answer because we our voices,y use but we must use the written word and action. two, we need an education campaign. i am not talking about a public .elations campaign we all know how to do that. we have worked the state system

and federal systems. we need more. we need an education campaign in all corners from our likely and unlikely allies. the role of the courts is under siege and how important the right to counsel is is in question. specifically, we must ask for certain things. we are calling for a hybrid system in every state and every federal judicial system. what i mean by hybrid system is that we have a strong federal defender organization in every state and strong panel attorneys with the time, the tools, and of the training to do the job well. provide aervices point of counsel in over 2000 representations per year.

there are 81 federal defender organizations under siege at this moment. both federal defender and unity 94 serve 91 of the districts. + who are0,000 accepting private assignments. we are cutting away. facing $60.9 million next year.tfalls for we have already had a severe cuts under sequestration and we are heading towards the scope left. the complexity, this is all happening when the complexity of our federal practices have increased substantially since 1964. the commitment and the time to david gaveeterans as an example of, to the people who

are being stopped and frisked in countless urban areas across the that we havenow dedicated people in place. what are we doing to their work, their structures, their training, their support? servew what it takes to -- to produce and deliver effective representation. we have it in place. we need you to do the third thing. judiciary and a stronger public defense system that is a hybrid system. i say strongly because i am an internal optimist. it is time not to let the erosion happen that i worked in for over 28 years. five years -- it feels like five years. five months ago. [laughter] five months ago, it was my dream

job to work for the gold standard, the federal defenders. and it was like walking into a buzz saw. here we are. at the very least, what we can do all together in unison and one voice is to ask congress to provide a baseline of steady funding, to protect our adversarial justice that is in our constitutional dna. we should not just compare the defenders to nothing. comparing ourselves to the u.s. attorneys that determine which cases are brought and presented. we must look at a balanced scales of justice. that is our dna. when youose clashes, have the training on both sides, the truth rises. the accuracy of the system is that your. yes, we can reclaim it.

our dna helix is are there. fairness. insurance against overreaching of the government. representing cobb located human beings and bringing them dignity . holding the government accountable at every step. every libertarian should be behind that. voice for the voiceless. all men and women are created walk over from the thurgood marshall judicial building with lots of people in w, there was a 10- year-old who ask, what does it say about the supreme court pillars? i remember, it says justice for all. so does every generation have to reclaim and reassert the legacy of social justice?

of constitutional protection? yes. absolutely. that is why we are here today. this is the start of of the criminal justice act, a year each month the defender services and judiciary will reclaim our constitutional values. we will educate. we will call you to action and we will recommit the sixth amendment. forank you for being here committing and reigniting that -- andnd principal area that principle. [applause] for your five years of service. [laughter] hope i last. >> as a colleague, friend, and mentor of mine said, you come during interesting times. i said, i am not sure i like your definition of interesting.

in the midst of all of this sort of chaos and everything, in some ways, breaking apart, we have the opportunity and the obligation to bring it back together again. think, is toope, i look at what came before. why did we have this occur in the first place. where are we now? where do we want to go for the next 50 years. what is the future we want to build for ourselves? i would like to pick it up from there. i am being a little bit this seizures, but i know that morgan has worked throughout his career . >> if i could print money, i would have the answer. inc. all of my co- panelists. i am sure there are some historians among us at the

library of congress. i don't know the last time there was a panel of four defense attorneys here. that also brings to mind something i want to say in the judges who issued an impassioned plea on behalf of the judiciary and the unction. isn't part of what i prepared to talk about but it did strike me as something to say. if bar associations can do good , but there is a special obligation of every lawyer to stand up at a time when rights are under attack and particularly when the judiciary is in the crosshairs of a budget battle. they are limited in what they can do. we need to be there for the judiciary and the defense function. i call upon all of those who are involved in the legal

profession, including prosecutors. especially prosecutors. and corporate counsel. and everyone who has a lot agree to understand this a little bit of friendly has to stand up at this time. ,n this 50th anniversary year we have had a solid year because the indigent defense system throughout the nation are a diff -- are a mess. overly generous to call them systems. they aren't. attorneys, ngos, have all decried the failure of this country to realize the promise to gideon. then the lesser statue attorney general has repeatedly throughout his tenure spoken out, most recently at the gideon celebration itself when he said it is time to reclaim gideon's petition and resolve and confront the obstacles that face

our indigent defense providers in this country. events that note and i think was historic. it happened last week. basically a challenge to an inadequate, indigent defense system. united states department of justice filed a statement of interest in injunctive relief. moment.a breakthrough if you want to talk about something that could give us this is thetimism, most significant development we have seen. the vindication of sixth -- that is big. it is beyond ironic. it is tragic that the one system

, the model, the cadillacooto ir of being degraded. i have been working on indigent defense reform for the better part of the decade. what has defamed -- disdained us is the ability to sight of the model we can point to. amendments have made that possible. i would like to recall, if i generalt attorney robert kennedy said when the action was and acted. he said, now it is up to the bar in every community to see that to this act becomes more than a pay bill for attorneys. it is up to the bar to establish standards and ensuring that a pointed attorneys will not merely be compensated, but they will provide competent defense. is precisely what we have had any federal system. it is the hybrid case the defense spoke about.

it is a system that has fully supplementedenders by robust, capable, supervised private attorneys who are the necessary koppelman to the necessary defenders. essentialboration is to the system. it is embodied in what we use as the benchmark. number two.ple until now, the federal system has complied with eight of the 10 principles. i will talk about those two in just a moment. those principles include adequate training, eligibility controlled workloads, continuous representation of each client. if the system is degraded, there is little hope we can use this

model system to spur reform throughout the states. that is the reality of what will happen if these sweeping cuts are allowed to stand. we cannot afford to let the system sink to the level that you heard thomas described so vividly, which is the reality of most state defender systems. that is where a lawyer spends maybe two or three minutes with a client and enters a guilty plea. mass produce guilty pleas. wrongful conviction. we have not seen those things on the federal side but we could. issue aboutan staffing levels or attorney compensation. it is a fundamental constitutional right and access to justice for poor people. are just talking about having an attorney with a law degree.

we are talking about an attorney with specialized skill in theinal defense and with time and resources to properly investigate, analyze, and prepare a case. it means having access to investigators. it is so critical to get out of there quickly and get the evidence which can exonerate someone. it is access to mental health professionals, social workers, and paralegals. the lawyers who depend upon these panels do not get free research. they have to pay for all of that. studies have been done that show these rates were necessary. they were fought for, long and hard by judges because it is necessary to support a healthy system. traininghaving regular so attorneys are fully informed of developments of the law and science. you cannot mass reduce a quality

defense. effective have representation if you are going to bid out to the lowest bidder. you cannot subjugate a fundamental constitutional right to being counters and leave it exposed or unprotected to the political winds through this town. if you treat the defense function as a mere line item in a budget, you are short changing budget and will probably spend more money in the long run. produces theuently results for the individual and the society. these things all save money and are advanced when you have competent, the zealous, effective advocates for the accused. as i said, the federal defenders and panels have met the challenge up until now. that

level of quality cannot be preserved if you don't have the funding. it is not possible. is takehave to do advantage of this 50th anniversary. i would like to say to move beyond where we are, but first we have to protect what we have. this is a responsibility of congress. as long as it is under the judiciary, it is a fundamental responsibility of the judiciary. i mentioned that the federal system complies with eight out of the 10 principles. let me talk about the two that it does not comply with. numberf all, principle eight. there is to be heritage between defense counsel with respect to resources. it is included as an equal partner. that is simply not true today. you heard david say it. there is not anything even close to parity.

i am talking about the resources that are put into it. i am talking about in this current structure that we have, the ability of the justice department through its budgetary oversight to avoid significant cuts in prosecution services. we don't have that on the defense side. disparity is self-evident throughout the system, but let's also think about whether this is a time to take a look at principle number one. principle number one is that the public defense, including the payment of the defense counsel is independent. for years, because the system has worked well, we have not had a conversation about that first principle as it applies to the federal system. we have ignored the fact that that principle is not enforced in the federal system. i am not saying that we have easy answers to this.

the judiciary has been a wonderful advocate over the years for this function, but is it time now to think about whether this country is ready to have some sort of indigent defense oversight that will protect both our state systems by setting standards that can be complied with and protect the system as well? it seems to me a constitutional right, without which most of the other rights cannot be protected , is something that warns that conversation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, norman. i think norman has perfectly ended our conversation for today, but not for this year because he has discussed some of

the things that are good, some of the things that are broken, some of the challenges that we face in order to survive and some of the things we all need to challenge ourselves to make this a better half a century of justice for the american people. i want to echo something that i think kate said it most directly, but i think all of the panelists will agree with. in the american experiment. he may find many flaws in the is applied, but i didn't think it would show up in the courtrooms if we did not think that some level we have the possibility to do better and should do better. i think -- i don't know. my view is that america is not the smoothest sailing state, but i think we can do the right thing. that is where america has been and can be a beacon for hope and opportunity and should be a

beacon of justice for the world. i would challenge all of you and all of us to work towards that for the next year and of the next 50 years. we will be available to answer any questions you will have during the reception. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> later today, we will be taking you live to the may oral abate with the democratic -- ma yoral debate of the democratic candidates. that is here on c-span and our companion network, c-span 2, a

of the poor.ality it is ahead of the 50th anniversary of martin luther king, junior's march on washington for jobs and freedom. you can watch satellite on c- span 2 area taking a look at some of the news coming out of syria, reports of chemical weapons used by the government killingascus, allegedly hundreds of civilians. the obama administration issued a statement that said, the united states is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near damascus earlier today. we are working urgently to gather additional information. the statement continues saying requesting formally that the united nations urgently investigate this new allegation. the u.n. investigative team, which is currently in syria, is prepared to do so, and that is

consistent with its purpose and mandate. this comes just after the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey's letter to congress said there will be no intervention in syria and the opposedministration was to even limited intervention because they believed the rebels would not support american interests if they were to come into power right now. syria is likely to be a main topic today. we will be there alive. you can watch of the briefing here on c-span in about one minute or so. in the meantime, let's take a look at some of the headlines and phone calls from today's " washington journal." a piece by janet cooke. she reports. what

that is a bit of color on what is happening at town hall meetings. here on c-span, we have been covering the town hall meetings. you can watch democrats and republicans. we were showing you a recent justin, ameeting with republican who many of you know is against the nsa program.

nsa, health care, immigration reform, it is all on the table for members of congress. what is your message to them? anne, greensboro, n.c., what do you think? caller: i am calling about the town hall meeting that was played just prior to "washington journal" coming on, and it looked like a representative was playing to the fears of the people in the audience. i am sure that he knew what they were saying, but he was just giving vague information. one person stood up and said that his -- he took his son to the hospital because his son was beaten by a dog and he talked to different people at the hospital and the comment was, get rid of the federal government. instead of the representative addressing his concern, it did not make sense. another person, look like an elderly gentleman, said he was

in favor shutting down the government's. does he realize that he is receiving any kind of social security benefits or medicare that that would be shut down, too? the representative did not explain it to him. republicans just look like they're playing into the fears of the people in the audience. host: that will be an issue, when they return in october, september, some of the republican party would like to negotiate with the president and if he agrees to defund the affordable care act, they would agree to spending levels for the fiscal year. then there is the issue of raising the debt limit in october. some republicans would like to see further spending cuts put in place or they will shut down the government. what do you think of all of that? caller, i think that that is awful. they are trying to blackmail the country. republicans do not want the

country to be successful. they want the president to fail and they do not mind bringing down the president -- bringing down the country in their attempt to make the president fail. why would you shut down the government based on health care. they are not concerned about people who cannot get health care? why would one person in the country not want another person in the country to have access to health care? but i just think it is awful. host: all right. noll, new york. caller: my message to congress would be to defund obama care and the immigration bill in the house, nothing should be done with it, because they should -- they should actually not vote on it, they should allow it to go, i am not for immigration reform at all. i think that the government is

too large and that what congress should do is try to get limited government down to smaller government, as it should be, constitutionally. host: do you think that the republican should hold strong on defunding health care and shut down the government? caller: i think that they should defund obama care, that is it. just defund obama care. we are talking about specific bills. the president is talking about going the other way. he sponsored the mandate on businesses. he himself is saying that with obama care, if he sees responses to obama care, why should he go ahead with it? i think we should defund obama care, not the government. host: ok. that was knowle, new york, independent caller. health care is certainly one of

the issues that has come up at these town hall meetings, at many of them, whether republican, democrat, or immigration, all topics that have come up at these town hall meetings. bobby scott, a democrat from virginia, had a town hall meeting that we covered recently and here is what he had to say about the affordable care act. [video clip] >> one of the things that we did when we passed obama care was to make sure it was fully paid for. we made some changes in medicare and everyone can remember the number of billion dollars that we took out of medicare to pay for health care, to help pay for obama care. we helped to raise taxes. when the dust settled, the congressional research service estimates that there will be more paying for at than there are services, about $1 trillion in services, $1 chilean in new

offsets, the budget will be about $100 billion better off and a lot more better off in the future because of obama care. this suggestion that it is a fiscal responsibility issue, there is nothing wrong with looking at the numbers. if you look at the numbers in stark contrast to the medicare drug, what was passed did not get paid for, it went straight to the bottom line deficit, that is where the deficit came from. that is how we got in the ditch that we are in. obama care, be meticulously made sure, everyone was running on how you pay for it, we like to run on the benefits, but if you are doing it right you have to do both. host: congressman bobby scott,

representing the third district earlier this month about health care and other issues. our question this morning, your message to congress? lawmakers are getting ready to come back to washington. all that is on the table. this person says -- is shutting down is what it takes, shut it down. republican springs, -- republican caller, colorado springs. hello? all right, let me move on to mike in alexandria. democratic caller. caller: thank you. the greatest problem that i see is the media, the public.

celebrity, scandal, violence, mayhem, corruption throughout the country, the fcc has a role in chastising the industry for what they do. the movie industry should be criticized. the public is responsible for being informed and misinformed. host: victor, fort wayne, indiana. your thoughts? caller: have the president take less vacations to do more work. host: what should be at the top of their to do list? caller: more or less, stay in office, quit running around the country, and stay on subjects,

rather than doing a month here, a month there, just go home for thanksgiving and christmas. like normal factories or places that do in the united states. host: what do you say to members of congress who will say that when they are not in washington, they are not technically on recess. they are back in their home districts and speaking to their constituents, doing constituent services, helping out constituents who might have problems, hauling town hall meetings, that sort of thing? -- holding town hall meetings, that sort of thing? caller: that would be great if they did more town hall meetings and there were fewer vacations. if they did it more often and kept working more often and did

not worry about traveling around to some other country, but if they stayed on the subject of the united states. host: art, illinois, republican caller. caller: hi. host: your message to congress? caller: this congress is dying and dying slowly. if we shut down the government it might die. on the other hand, it might recover and be in better shape than it was before. thank you. host: all right. on the domestic front, health overhaul targeting hispanics, front-page story this morning.

host: above that is a story in "the wall street journal" about the nsa, "reaching deep into the -- to spyates despite." on net."

host: if you are interested in this and want to follow this topic and have your members of congress talk about it, possibly not funding those actions? this story is in the front page of "the wall street journal." here is "the usa today," "private manning could get 50 years." host: that is happening today.

also, yesterday in egypt we talked to all of you about the administration temporarily suspending military aid to egypt. the administration has taken issue with how that has been characterized. this is from "the washington post" this morning. host: that is in "the washington post" this morning. front page of "the new york times" on cairo this mort -- this morning, "firmly hooked into the u.s. pipeline." we talk about whether there was leverage from the u.s. in the military yesterday.

this is what eric schmidt reports. it goes on to say that even if saudi arabia or other countries make up for what the u.s. suspends, washington would block it from buying american weaponry with that money. larry.from

go ahead. making these people are $70 an hour and they won't even raise the minimum wage. and most of america is too stupid to realize they are voting against their own interests. thank you and have a nice day. host: sue in texas, independent caller appeared what do you think? caller: i want to know why you have a different health care than we do. i want to be on your plan. host: what do you think should be done about the health care law? forer: if they voted it in us, then they should be on the same health care we are. host: you think it should be funded? caller: yes, i do. host: have you sent that message to remember of congress? caller: have you attended -- host: have you attended a town hall meeting? caller: yes, i have. host: whose did you go caller:

to ron paul. -- host: whose did you go to? -- ron when was that paul. host: when was that? caller: the last time he was here. host: good morning, georgia, but is your message to congress? hearing theep democrat representatives and they really need to quit saying that obamacare has funds coming in and social security and medicare does not. medicare was before obamacare, and when you take $80 million out of this program to fund that, that is telling a lie. the money in taxes that we are getting should be going to medicare. they should change the medicare program around. why do we need obamacare when we already have medicare and medicaid that could have been restructured?

then we would not have to take money on of one program to build a new one. i live on a street where there are six crackhouses. i am the only white guy in a black neighborhood. and what i call the police, it takes 45 minutes for them to get out here. and when they come, they don't do anything. i watched the government do nothing. i am 42 years old, disabled, and retired. me and my wife saved, and we bought a house and did we were supposed to do. i get my disability, because i paid into it all of the years i worked. i watch people sell food stamps on my street. i watched people sell drugs on my street. all right, kevin in easing louis, illinois. democratic caller. caller: i thank you for allowing me to make my statement. i'm listening to the citizens of this country and their

sentiments about where the people are doing, but you've got to think about when the thetitution was made and african-american was not even considered a full citizen in this country. and you act like what has been done to us in the last 400 years, forget about it, get over it. most of americans the way they are today is because of hundreds andears of oppression depression that y'all have done to rise. -- to us. host: and wondering what you want congress to do about it. caller: what congress can do about it is first, acting like we are citizens, and especially the republicans. when they did create obamacare, you had citizens running to washington, d.c. said --

spitting on progress. these citizens of the tea party, you are spending on congress and on the other black citizens. nothing -- t done host: we've got that. , kevin. here is a comment from twitter. a report this morning about health care premiums.

that on health care this morning, and then continuing on the theme, to that line about marco rubio, the republican senator from florida, a possible contender for president in 2016. here is the headline. that is the topic also at town and also rubio,

the so-called gang of eight in the senate, where he is doing over this august recess. the "the new york times" is saying about ted cruz and the effort over the august recess on the affordable care act.

richard from florida, and independent caller. hi, richard. caller: good morning. de-ress should immediately fund this health care bill. not only is it a health care bill, but a tax bill that the supreme court had already designated as a tax bill. they rewrote the bill. now even democrats in congress are saying they cannot live with this bill because it is too expensive. them and their staff. president obama has already

exempted them from affordable health care, which is a joke. it has 21 additional new taxes. .3,000 pages will go to the irs they had to hire 18,000 irs agents to enforce the bill. this is a total disaster. also, this immigration bill -- host: before you go on to immigration, can i ask you whether you think it is worth de-funding the health-care building, do you think it is worth shouting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling? caller: i worked for the department of defense for 40 years. the last time they shut down the government, supposedly back in the 1990's, that was a big joke. are neverdepartments shut down. only non-essential personnel and non-emergency departments and

agencies. there will be plenty of government, believe me, to do what they normally do. sometimes it's difficult to figure out what they're doing. but they will not be shutdown. the affordable care act needs to be de-funded. it is a mess. it is not really a health care bill to begin with. it never was intended to be. it was to control our economy. it is a control bill. host: and on immigration? caller: the immigration bill is nothing more than another amnesty bill. immigration. they keep trying to bring together, congress keeps trying to bring together immigration and illegal aliens. law, butmmigration congress and this administration will not follow the law.

they keep trying to skirt the law and bring about a way to make the illegals legal. we already have immigration law. they need to follow the law is what i'm trying to save. >> all right, richard. richard.all right, we will move on to chris in pensacola, florida. go ahead, sir. caller: my question and my desire for congress, instead of cutting down and shutting down our government, let's bring all of our boys home, guard our , andters -- our borders bring the money we are getting other countries backing to our country. and if we need health care, the

people that cannot afford it, let's give it to them. host: george, democratic caller. caller: i agree with the last caller. bring the troops home. shuttleworth down the republicans started. wars down the republicans started. and try to make obamacare work, rather than trying to repeal it 40 times. the down and make its health- care plan work. power thatonly world does not have health care for all its people. >> we are going to leave the rest of this conversation. you can find it on line at the video library. we will go to the white house for the daily briefing. >> i do have a quick announcement of the top before we get going.

an update about the president's schedule today. the president and other senior administration officials will hold a seat -- a video teleconference with directors of state-based marketplaces. the president will thank them for working on the front lines today and you're about the progress they've made in setting up the new marketplaces, where americans will be able to shop for quality, affordable coverage that will be there for them when they need it most. a piece of health care development that will raise what we are on the topic -- it is this afternoon. i'm not sure what time. we learned that the growth in health-care premiums for employer-based coverage have slowed significantly under the affordable care act. the growth rate in 2013 was about one-third the size of the increases reside decade ago. also this week, montana became the latest state to announce health care premiums in the state that were lower-than-

expected. belowave been nearly 20% the cbo's projections so far, and tax credits will make that even more affordable for many americans. finally, there are a couple of reports today about a study that indicated that job creation at small companies has almost doubled in the last six months. this is another signal, economists say, that undercuts claims that the affordable care act is having a negative impact on job growth, particularly among smaller businesses. in fact, some might even say that the affordable care act is having a positive impact on small businesses, thereby on the bottom line, and of course, their employees who will have access to health care coverage. with all of that, take it away. about ae a question statement made earlier today. the president has said for about a year now that chemical weapons used crosses a red line.

and yet, we have at least one confirmed use and that this new report. is there any indication that policy is working, given the death rate continues, and that assad has allegedly used chemical weapons again? actuallynow, they're happens to be a united nations chemical weapons investigative team on the ground in syria. they were just granted access to the country yesterday, i believe. given the reports we have seen overnight about what may or may not have taken place in syria, we think it is important for that investigative team to be given access to that area. the assad regime, when presented with evidence that chemical weapons had been used in their country, have said that they are interested in a credible investigation to get to the bottom of what has happened. it is time for them to live up to that claim. if they actually are interested in getting to the bottom of the

use of chemical weapons and whether or not that has occurred in syria, and they will allow the investigative team that is already in syria to access the site where chemical weapons may have been used. it will allow them unfettered access to eyewitnesses, or even those who were affected by the weapons. it will allow them to collect physical samples without manipulation. and it will also ensure the security of that team while they do their work. the u.s. will be consulting with our allies and partners on the united nations security council about this. should be a top priority of the united nations. >> but what about the u.s. policy should make assad feel threatened in any way, make him feel like he should not do this again? >> this is not just u.s. policy. there is broad international agreement.

>> ok, the international community. what about that is threatening to him? >> i cannot speak to what he may or may not find threatening. there is no doubt that we have condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons. and you're right, we even said before there was an intelligence community assessment that chemical weapons had been used, that those individuals responsible for safeguarding chemical weapons would be held accountable for the way they were handled. there are a range of consequences for the actions that have possibly taking place. >> what are the consequences? how have they been held accountable for the first incident? and given that we are having a hard time figuring that out, why should they feel threatened about taking this action again? >> it is hard for me to speak about whether or not they feel threatened. but there is a broad usernational view that the of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable. even from people who may

disagree with us on some aspects of our policy related to syria it should be able to agree that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and should be able to support a robust and impartial credible investigation toward whether the chemical weapons were used. again, how this will affect our policy as a relates to the assad regime, will continue to review all complications with our international partners. we're providing assistance to the opposition, and even to the syrian military council. the united states is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to try to meet the humanitarian needs of the population that has been forced to flee the violence. and in some cases, we're talking about women and children living in terrible conditions just trying to avoid the violence. what is happening is a terrible situation. there is work that can be done with our international partners to try to continue to pressure the assad regime. we have seen evidence and

indications that the regime is feeling that pressure, but you're right, it has not resulted in the outcome that we would like to see. which is assad being completely removed from power. it is not just the will of the u.s., but the will of the syrian people, and that is why it is important. independentany verification about this alleged attack? >> there is not. we have seen reports. we have consulted about the reports. but that is why we're calling for this un investigation to be conducted. there is an aunt -- an investigation team that is on the ground in syria right now. we're hopeful that the assad regime will follow through on what they have claimed previously, that they are interested in a credible investigation that gets to the bottom of reports that chemical weapons have been used. again, it is time for the assad regime to live up to the

rhetoric in that regard. and give the investigators access to the site, the opportunity to review -- interview witnesses, collect samples, and other things that would help them reach a credible determination about what occurred. >> has this triggered any diplomatic efforts? with russian counterparts, secretary kerry putting pressure on russia. >> there are a number of conversations that have occurred a couple of different levels between the united states and our partners and allies who have a vested stake in the outcome. and there was a request that was made for a consultation at the u.n. security council. ambassador powers may be able to offer insight into what is occurring in new york. >> is there anything that would indicate it might have been staged by rebels for international attention? >> i will not speculate on what

may or may not have happened. we have credible, professional investigators with the un on the ground in syria right now. let's give them the opportunity to look at what happened, interview witnesses, collect physical evidence, and then we can reach a conclusion about what actually happened. but suffice it to say, the use of chemical weapons is something that the u.s. finds totally deplorable and completely unacceptable. those who are responsible for the use of chemical weapons, if it is determined that is what happened, will be held accountable. >> you said there were indications that assad is feeling the pressure, i think was your turn -- your term. what's possibly be due to believe that? >> certainly, the public statements that we have seen for world leaders across the globe is an indication that he not only does not have their support, but their opposition.

we have seen the toll that this conflict has taken on the relationships that the assad regime has with other countries in the region that they had previously at least have a working relationship with. there is also an indication that the syrian economy has taken a pretty tough hit in the midst of this turmoil as well there are a range of ways that they could have felt the pressure. , as i acknowledged to julie earlier, we have not attained our gut -- our goal yet, which is the removal of assad from power. and again, we are seeking that removal not just because it is our preference, but because it is the will of the syrian people. the syrian government, if it inhibits the investigators in any way, will that be taken as a sign of guilt?

will that crossed the red line for the administration? >> they certainly have the opportunity to live up to the rhetoric that they have said previously. if there -- the assad regime said they welcome a credible investigation to get to what actually occurred. caniglia, there are reports of widespread use of chemical conveniently, there are reports of widespread use of chemical weapons, at least in one region. and there is today as we speak on the ground in syria, a united a specialty inth the use of investigating chemical weapons use. let's give them the argentine to determine what occurred and get to the bottom of this, ask -- let's give them the opportunity to determine what occurred and give them -- get to the bottom of this. >> you said its chemical weapons

were used because of these -- the assad regime. what i'm asking is if the prevention of the investigation will trigger action by the administration. indicatedpreviously and stated, or at least his regime has, that they are interested in a full investigation. even if he wants to continue to ignore the strong urgings of the international community, he has already altered -- articulate that it is in the best interests of his regime to conduct an investigation. he can follow through on his own rhetoric. ofif he impedes the actions the investigators, will that cross the line for the investigation? >> -- for the united states? >> it is not even a matter of cooperation. we would like to see the assad regime not interfere with this investigation. they do have the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the team as they are

conducting the investigation. but what we're looking for is unfettered access to the witnesses, the opportunity to investigate the site where this occurred, the opportunity to look at physical evidence without interference from the assad regime. let's let the investigation move forward and we will judge the results accordingly. >> in the big picture of foreign policy right now, we have russia ignoring our request for snowden, ignoring our request for cooperation with syria. egypt ignoring -- you have egypt ignoring a request for a stop to the violence and you have siri -- syria using chemical weapons on their own people, potentially. there is a perception among some that this is a weakness on

the part of the obama administration. can you address that? to veryre referring difficult, and in some cases very intractable problems that in some cases are bearing very severe consequences for the people who live in these countries. there is no doubt about that. the u.s. has a responsibility to be a part of the international effort to address those problems. for a variety of reasons, one of them is that it is the desire of the u.s. to have good relationships with these countries. what we are trying to do in many of these cases is to marshal international support, and to work with our friends and allies to work with our partners in the region. and we have done that with some success and with some progress notable in a variety of circumstances. to see movinglike

continued effort on the part of the international community to work together to address some of these problems. but we would also like to see the leaders of these countries to respect the rights of the people they govern, the people they lead. that is true of the assad regime in syria, and it is certainly true of the interim government in egypt, certainly two of the most intractable problems we have been dealing with ladley. >> -- lately. theany are wondering if obama administration is willing to use the stick that comes along with the rhetoric. is there a real stake? should these countries fear the united states and what it says when it says we condemn what you're doing? but you're asking a philosophical question. it might be better posed to the

commander-in-chief himself. think the president's willingness to use force to protect the interests of the american people has been well- documented by a lot of people in this room. i think that is particularly true when you consider the efforts of this administration that have been implemented to go after the core leadership of al atda that was previously least intact along the border of afghanistan and pakistan. that is no longer the case. osama bin laden is no longer their plotting against the u.s. and our allies. it does not mean there is not a continuing threat posed by al not mean ithat does has not changed in its way of using force. there are other ways to work with the international community to reach objectives.

the president took a trip to africa where he highlighted some of the strong relationships the united states has there. this is the work that the president vowed to do when he took office, which is to rebuild some of the relationships that were in tatters when this president entered the oval office. that strengthens the united states on the international scene. it is good for broader national security interests. but it is something that the president and members of his team have to work on something -- have to work on every day. >> more than 100,000 people have been killed. that is effectively like wiping out the entire city of south bend, indiana. how many more people need to die before the u.s. does employ some use of force beyond humanitarian aid? >> what the president does is he

is evaluating difficult for policy problems like this, and he assesses the national security interests of america. that is what he has done in this circumstance. he has assessed that the best way to tackle this problem is to work closely with our international allies to present a united front to the assad regime. he is involved with our partners to try to pressure bashar al- assad to respect human rights and to leave power. he is involved in providing assistance to the syrian opposition council and the military council to aid them as they fight against elements of the assad regime troops who are waging war against them. and it also means providing humanitarian and assistance. to try to meet the needs of those people in syria or bearing the brunt of the violence. >> if this is, in fact, the

case, does this change the calculation? he has said before that boots on the ground is not an option. does this change that? >> before we suggest what may or may not happen as a result of the investigation findings be revealed, let's make sure the investigation actually get conducted in a manner that is credible. >> fair enough. the last time during the investigation, several months passed before the u.s. action it took any action. there is no reason to believe the u.s. will be granted access to that area, given the negotiated terms. >> because there actually is and investigations team that is in syria right now, i think that makes it slightly more likely -- but we will see. it certainly makes it easier for the assad regime to facilitate their access to the site. there is a bunch of the access throughout the

country to negotiate this one step that does not have to occur. this is a test for the assad regime about whether or not they will live up to their rhetoric. i'm not sure this is the same situation we were facing before. >> the terms have already been negotiated between the u.s. and the assad regime in advance of their arrival suggesting that they could only go to those communities. >> special circumstances could be applied. --if they do not get access last time around when the white house spoke about the use of chemical weapons, they referred taken place on a small scale. does this qualify as a larger scale? >> you are referring to the community as has been about the previous use of chemical weapons. i do not have an assessment about this particular circumstance to share with you at this point. but it could be determined by a

legitimate, credible investigation. and it is among the many reasons why the assad regime should facilitate the access to the site. regimeith the assad launched its biggest chemical attack on civilians at precisely at the moment when a u.s. inspections team -- un inspections team was parked in damascus? the answer is easy, because it suggests that no one will do a damn thing to stop them. there is a good chance that he is a correct. is the u.s. going to do anything to stop them beyond what is done? >> there are a number of steps that we have taken i have walked through what those steps are. those involved humanitarian aid, close coordination with our allies, important conversations with regional partners. and it involves some assistance to the syrian military council. there are a range of things that we have done already.

in terms of additional assistance that could be provided to my certain it would not rule that out. but again, that is something we are considering on a very regular basis. of thislts investigation or the results of the assad regime is seeking to inhibit this investigation will results in calculated measures later. >> will the president grant bradley manning a presidential pardon? >> there is a process for clemency applications. i'm not going to get ahead of that process. if there is an application that is filed by mr. manning or his attorneys, that application will be considered in that process, like any other application. >> you were talking earlier about tough statements coming from this government and elsewhere around the world. one year ago at this month, the president said at that news podium at a news conference that

chemical weapons were used were spread in syria that would be a red line. his next statement was that there would be enormous consequences. what have the consequences been? them.re are a number of we have talked about the steady escalation of aid that has been provided to the syrian opposition. that is an effort to try to help , whether or not a war is being waged against them by the abizaid regime. -- by the assad regime. and the handling of chemical weapons, those persons will be held responsible for their actions with those weapons. >> but it has been a year since the president made that statement. it has been a year.

>> well, it has been. and we are in a circumstance where the assad regime is still in power. you're a large segment of the international community aligned against them. you have the u.s. providing assistance to the opposition. you have the united states of america trying to meet you not? the humanitarian needs -- trying to meet the humanitarian need, or seeking to meet the and humanitarian needs of the people. the situation is ongoing. and our effort to work with the international community and with the syrian opposition to remove assad from power is ongoing. we're working in that effort, not just because it is the preference of the u.s., but the will of the syrian people. want, athe outcome we government that reflects the will of the syrian people and respect the basic human rights that the syrian people deserve to have protected by their government. rhetoric in many of these

cases has shifted to egypt, with christians being killed, church is being destroyed. what is the red line in egypt? >> i did not bring my red pen out with me today. but i can tell you that we have condemned in unambiguous terms all the violence that has been perpetrated there in egypt. we have condemned the violence perpetrated by the government against peaceful protesters, and were just as outraged and just as concerned about reports that christian churches had been targeted. egypt shouldin come to an end. it needs to stop. that is the way we will come to a reconciliation that will allow the interim government to make good on their promise, to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. need to see the process get started there. that is something we are encouraging the interim government to undertake.

>> do you have a reaction in the courts for lane case? >> i'm not familiar. 22-year-oldma, this australian, a baseball player, who was targeted by three african-american young men. meet the australian was out on a jog and they have told police that they were bored and thought it would be fun to kill him. do you have a reaction? >> it sounds like this is a very tragic case. law enforcement is investigating. i would not want to get out ahead of that case. presidents ago, the talked about his concern about the impact of violence on young people in particular in this country. >> why has he spoken out about

this in this case? on the trayvon martin case, he spoke on extensively. >> there are some people in this room that i do not think would agree with you that the president spoke out extensively. >> wasn't he in the rose garden? >> he got asked a question about it. >> and he did not have to answer it, but he did. and many came out here. >> he came out and share some and he expressed concern about the impact of violence in communities across the country. and he talked about a number of things that the government can do, but also things he can do in our community, whether it is parents, churches, and communities to try to address the impact of violence. and whether there is more that we can do to try to protect our children. can you talk about the national security council and the president, how long it will last and what the decision of

the president is going forward like in the case of apache helicopters being delayed or cancelled entirely? they met in the situation room yesterday for more than an hour. they had the opportunity to talk about the consultation that senior members of his team have been having with their counterparts in egypt. you ever this saddam last few days and not -- you have heard me say this in the last few days a number of times that secretary kerry, secretary ago, and the obama administration have been in contact with a number of their character parts. this is an opportunity for the president to hear directly about those conversations. the president in early july ordered his team to conduct a review of our aid and assistance program to egypt. this is an opportunity for the president to hear from senior

members of his team about the ongoing review. the review today continues to be connected. there is no change to report at this time as it relates to our aid and assistance program in relationship to egypt. there was also an opportunity for the president to cheer from -- hear from members of his team .bout the situation in cairo the president was briefed on that. beeninally, we have also in regular touch with our allies and partners in the region you have a stake in the outcome in egypt, and have been engaged and trying to find a solution. the president was giving an opportunity to them to -- was given an opportunity to hear from our allies and partners as well. specific stepsy

to be taking any job? but i'm not prepared to comment on that right now. >> is it credible now for this white house to continue tuesday as he sat on jalon out there is not a domestic surveillance program going on in this country? >> of course. >> even though as these disclosures continued to show up, there is ample evidence, and conversation -- confirmation in some cases, that surveillance of the public was happening that , andwere not aware of there is a sort of constant net in there that is not president's point of view surveillance, but would strike most of the public as a surveillance program? >> we are talking about a nearly focused program -- narrowly focused program on intelligence. the goal is to implement these

programs anyway -- >> that is the goal, but there are more than one or two instances of e-mail or conversations that do not particulate fit into those -- that do not fit into those particularly identified guidelines. >> we read about it in the wall street journal and the reason we're talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards at the nsa that much for for compliance issues, that tabulate them, document them, and put in place measures that will correct them when they occur. is their tabulation of the domestic scene -- surveillance? but this is specifically at the relates to foreign intelligence and foreign surveillance for our national security purposes. i think the wall street journal risk -- itwas pretty pretty specific about the aims

of that program and how some of those goals were achieved. at the same time, when this president took office, he acknowledged in a news conference with all of you that he had inherent skepticism about these programs. about whether they did properly strike a balance between protecting our national security and protecting our privacy rights that all americans enjoy. as a result of that skepticism, he ordered a review of these programs, and as a result of that review, some steps were place stricter compliance standards, greater transparency measures, and additional responsibilities for the intelligence community to report to congress, who has oversight responsibility. the president has taken some steps to address these concerns. the last thing i will say about this is that as we have talked about this in recent months, one thing has become clear.

these programs are operated by operate -- by security professionals and there are documented cases where these programs have contributed to the destruction of terror plots. there are documented cases where these programs have strengthened not just our homeland security, but also the security of our assets and allies around the globe. we're talking about very important programs. but the president feels just as strongly of the need to strike the right balance between security and privacy. we have heard in recent weeks suggestions from progress that there are additional things we can do to strengthen these programs and make sure these strict compliance standards are met. there are individual members of congress that at suggestions for additional changes that were like to enact into law. the president and members of his administration are willing to sit down at the table with them to put in place greater

transparency. the reason for that is simply, the president believes these programs will work better if there is public confidence in them. if we can inspire greater public continent -- confidence in these programs by putting in greater transparency or by putting an additional oversight measures, that we are certainly word -- willing to work with congress to implement those changes. feel,s it at times particularly in syria and egypt, to affect the outcomes they would like? >> of course not. the president believes there is a role for the international community to play in both of these instances. this president and these can -- this country has taken a leadership role in this international community. audio] -- [inaudible]

that wee a knowledge have a couple of times not achieved our alpago, which is to remove assad from power. our goal, which is to remove assad from power. there is broad international .upport for that and there is broad international support -- broad support in egypt in terms of asking the interim government to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. there is a role for the international community to play, and there is a leadership role for the u.s. to play in the international community. and you're right, in both instances we have not attained our ultimate goal. >> [inaudible] to assess.harder what i can tell you is we have work to do in both of these areas. this is something we are actively working on, whether it is a national security meeting

in the situation room or, whether it is meetings at the un ambassadory our kamal ourk meetings conducted by our ambassador, or meetings here conducted by our secretary of defense, we are working on those issues. anythingu tell us about his condition? >> i'm not in a position to offer any new details about the medical condition of mr. biden. when additional details are beilable, they will likely communicated to you through the delaware attorney general's office. i do not have any update in terms of conversations between the president and vice president. and it is the vice president's of its who is maintaining the vice president's schedule.

i do not have any updates on the schedule. as you know, he is in houston today. at this point, he is still scheduled to join the president in scranton on friday. but we will see. there are changes, we will get them to you >> -- get them to you. >> the u.s. government currently classified as mayor -- classifies marijuana in the most dangerous category. gupta, my distinguished colleague, has called for reconsideration of the classification. is there any movement in that direction? >> while the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the president and the administration believed that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with

serious illnesses and their care givers, is not the best allocation of federal law enforcement resources. the president last talked about this interview he had with barbara walters in december when she asked in a similar question. the president acknowledged that the priority, in terms of the dedication of law enforcement resources, should be targeted toward drug kingpins, traffickers, and others who perpetrate violence in the conduct of the drug trade. but that is the best use of our law enforcement resources. but at the same time, the president has not advocated a change in the law. be researche ot -- marijuana's medical benefits? >> i'm not sure what changes could be implemented into the law to have an impact on marijuana research. [indiscernible]

>> for some reason, i have the sneaking suspicion that this will draw me all kinds of traffic on twitter. [laughter] >> there are fires burning in 11 states across the nation, in backing thousands of acres. has the president considered federal involvement in fighting the fires? has he considered visiting any of these states? >> that is a good question, because there has been quite a bit of federal involvement. the better -- the president was briefed yesterday on the efforts s. fight the fire o he was briefed yesterday about the wildfire efforts in the west and the effort to fight those fires. one thing discussed yesterday by the multi agency coordinating group, they elevated the level

from four to five. greaters does is allow state and federal resources to be applied to confront the situation the prepared as level is based on fire conditions, fire activity, and resource availability. there are more than 40 and contained an large wild fires all across the u.s., including in states like alaska, utah,rnia, oregon, idaho, and washington. there 1700 that have responded to the beaver creek fire in idaho. fema has approved 26 fire management assistance grants this fire season. including one that was provided august 15 to fight the beavercreek fire in idaho.

these assistance grants provide resources, both monetary and otherwise, to state and local officials responsible for fighting these fires. there is a robust effort under way at the federal level to support the ongoing efforts. i should have started this comment by saying something that is true of everybody in this room, which is that our thoughts and prayers are with those in those communities that have been affected by these fires. and our thoughts and fair -- thoughts and prayers are particularly with those who are fighting the fires. can you talk about the president's endorsement of cory booker, and particularly its comments about -- his comments about the gun issue? >> you just want to talk about it? i'm not sure i have a lot more to add and what the president has said about this, that mayor

booker has been a leading advocate of steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence across the country. the president certainly shares that goal. you have heard him talk quite a bit about that he believes congress should take to reduce gun violence in this country. that is, everything from passing laws to make it harder for criminals and those who should not have guns, make it harder for those individuals to obtain firearms. there are also a range of things we can do in areas like mental health and education that also stand to reduce gun violence in communities across the country. i know that mayor booker has also made middle-class families a priority and tried to press for expanded economic access and opportunity for middle-class families. and that is also a priority that the president has been loudly advocating for and would be another thing that he would be to working with

mr. bacher. with mr. booker. >> in the midst of all this, is the president still trying to ?alvanize is he still talking -- as he thought about bringing cory booker into this? >> we are working -- willing to work with democrats and republicans to make progress on this. -- weis a high-profile look forward to having the opportunity to visit -- revisit as ang loopholes as well variety of other measures and to reduce gun violence in our communities. >> new jersey was one of the first states that came out with an anti-assault weapon ban in

the 1990's. that the words that the president had about mayor booker today were concentrated mostly on his record on these of thesed his advocacy issues and less about the state in which he resides. >> can you talk a little bit ?bout the education plans and scores of the good, is there anything aimed at for-profit higher education? >> i'm not in a position to talk about the details the president will roll out tomorrow. the president will be focused on reducing the cost of college education for families across the country, because it is so important for middle-class families and those trying to get to the middle class to have access to programs. >> [inaudible]

>> now that i can share with you, but we are working on it. >> you talked about regulators' meeting with health-care officials in egypt. i wonder, with so many crises brewing around the world, can you explain the president having to appear at a lighthearted event and the way that presidents present themselves around the world verses year? >> the event with the dolphins was scheduled for sometime and it was something that the president enjoyed. of the 81 questions the thinksness -- i don't anyone questions the seriousness with which the president kyrgyz these situations. he talked recently about the need of the egyptian government to transition back to a democratically elected

government. i'm not sure what the -- well, i think that is an indication that the president is focused on these issues. the fact that he had a meeting with his national security team yesterday is an indication that it is something that he is focused on. that will continue. as roger alluded to, we will spend some time on a bus in new york and pennsylvania at the end of this week talking about another priority of the president, which is reducing the cost of college education. that does not mean there is any less attention being paid to the ongoing violence in egypt, or the report of chemical weapons use in syria, or the range of serious things happening across the globe. >> to do you expect the american public will hear from the president on the questions of the moment in a given week? >> i think they should expect him to be focused on important

priorities. think there is ample evidence to indicate that the president is focused on the right things. >> so many americans are packing their kids off this week and next to go to college. they are going to be wondering if the president has anything to propose that actually affects the costs. do you know anything you may hear from the president that will help them with this academic year? >> stay tuned for tomorrow. have gone to many other campuses. >> that will be more clear after their -- after we talk about the policy proposals tomorrow. we will see what happens. the president at his news

conference talked about trying to put together a task force on surveillance to offer expertise. what is the update on when we might see that group of people put together? >> i do not have an update on the specific timing, but that is being actively worked on. i think it would be another example of the president's desire to work with members of congress and others who have an greatere to inspire confidence in these programs. if there are steps related to advancing technology that would allow us to strengthen these programs but also strengthen the oversight, then we want to hear those ideas. so putting together an outside group like this to examine some of these issues and to examine their impact on the program is an example of the president's further refine these programs in a way that will

strengthen public confidence in them and therefore strengthen the programs altogether. thanks, everybody. have a great wednesday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today's briefing started with questions about serious. the un security council says they will schedule emergency consultations this afternoon on the alleged use of chemical weapons in syria. shocked,on said he is and the obama administration says it will urgently work together information. forces in syria say hundreds of people were killed. here is the white house reaction on the news coming out of syria. >> what we think is most important for right now is there actually happens to be a united

nations chemical weapons investigative team on the ground in syria. they were granted access to the country yesterday, i believe. given the reports we have seen overnight about what may or may not have taken place in syria, we think it is important for that investigative team to be given access to that area. now, the assad regime, when thatnted with evidence chemical weapons have been used in their country, they said they are interested in a credible investigation to get to the bottom of what has happened. it is time for them to live up to that claim. if they are actually interested in getting to the bottom of the use of chemical weapons and whether or not that has occurred in syria, then they will allow the yuan investigative team that is already in syria to access the site where chemical weapons may have been used. it will allow them unfettered access to eyewitnesses or even those who were affected by the

weapons. it will allow them to collect physical samples without manipulation. it will also ensure the security that they can do their work. the united states will be andulting with our allies partners on the united nations security council about this. because this is and should be a top priority of the united nations. >> what about the u.s. policy making assad feel threatened in any way? >> this is not a u.s. policy, but there is broad international agreement -- >> what about that is threatening to him? >> i cannot speak to what he may or may not find threatening. there is no doubt that we condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons. you are right, we even said before -- there was an intelligence community assessment that came up with what had been used -- that those forviduals responsible

safeguarding chemical weapons would be held accountable for the way that those chemical weapons were handled. there are a range of consequences for the actions that have possibly taken place. >> that is what i do not understand. what are the consequences? how are they held accountable for the first event? why should they feel threatened and feel like they should not take this action again? >> again, it is hard to speak to whether or not they feel threatened. but there is a broad usernational view that the of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable. even from people who may disagree with us on some aspects of our policy related to syria should be able to agree that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and should be able to support a , critical impartial investigation into reports that chemical weapons may have been used. again, how will it affect our

policy as it relates to the assad regime? we will continue to involve our consultations with international partners. we are providing assistance to the opposition and even to the syrian military council. and meeting the humanitarian needs of the refugee populations, talking about women and children living in terrible conditions, just trying to avoid the violence. what is happening is a terrible situation. there is work that can be done with our international partners to try to continue to pressure the assad regime. we have seen evidence that the was feeling pressed. but you are right, it has not resulted in the outcome we would like to see, which is assad being completely removed from power. it is not just the preference of the united states of america, it is the syrian people. >> you can watch the entire briefing online. just go to c-span.org and click

on the video library. tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a preview of the new york city mayoral debate among the democratic candidates. that is just before the debate itself, which we will also have live here on c-span at 7:00. on c-span2conomic inequality in the working poor. that is ahead of the 50th anniversary of the march on washington for johnson's freedom on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span's encore presentation of first ladies -- >> they went to chicago to nominate someone else for president he read he was not expecting to be a candidate. there was no expectation that over the next five months, some are between thousand and 20,000 people would show up at her home . when these people started to show up on the property, that many people obviously unexpected, and invited, it

started to cause a lot of damage to the outside of the property. we know lucretia garfield was a very gracious host to the people who were invited to the home. she would greet him in the front hallway and offer them what she called standing refreshments, which basically meant she was very gracious. she talked to them and would offer them a cold glass of water or lemonade. wantf course you do not them to overstay their welcome. >> the on tour of first ladies continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> let's begin with a very well known american novelist, james baldwin. mr. baldwin, what brought you into the market of washington? i i could say the fact that was born a negro in this country. more completely, i felt there was no way for me not to be involved in what is the most significant and most important and most loaded demonstration to

free americans that has ever happened in this country. >> up until very recently, laced most americans, i expressed my support of civil rights largely by talking about it at cocktail parties, i am afraid. like most many americans this summer, i could also no longer pay only lip service to a cause that was so urgently right and in a time that is so urgently now. >> sunday, the 50th anniversary of the march on washington with historic and contemporary roundtable discussions, archival film, a visit to the national portrait gallery, a theater performance on the 1960's civil rights movement, and first count accounts of the day. 1:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, every weekend on c- span3. >> this week on "q&a," rajiv

chandrasekaran discusses his --ory describing the f-35 titled too big to bail, describing the f- 35fighter jet, the defense department's newest and most expensive weapon system. >> rajiv chandrasekaran, you did a front-page piece on sunday about the f-35.that was in march. what is it? >> it is the most expensive weapons system in the history of the united states. history of mankind, quite frankly. it is an advanced warplane that is to be used by the air force, navy, and the marine corps. it is the replacement for the f- 16. a new advanced all-purpose fighter jet. it is still in development, is

an incredibly troubled program, it has gone tens of billions of dollars over budget. i bought into this program as a way to write about the overall challenges. this program is singular in terms of its cost overruns, delays, and the way it has been structured. its most effective attributes are not all of its radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and the ability to fight at supersonic speeds. it may well be the way it has been designed to evade budget cutters in washington. >> what is the difference between the f-35 and the f-22? >> the f-22 has had its share of technical troubles.

that was supposed to be the high-end fighter. the replacement for the f-15. it is a real high performance fighter. it is meant to win against any potential adversary in dogfights. the plan was to have fewer f-22 and then you would have more of the f-35. that would be the mainstay, for the next 40 or 50 years. if you are fighting against a sophisticated adversary, the f- 22s are going in and they are fighting in the air against the adversaries of combat aircraft. the f-35's comes in and they are

carrying the bombs that will take out the other military targets. they are the second waves that come in to do the real heavy lifting. these are planes that are supposed to be all purpose. the f-35 is supposed to be able to provide support to combat troops on the ground if they're fighting and some african nation. they're supposed to be able to provide a degree of aerial reconnaissance in other parts of the world. this was supposed to be -- if the f-22 was going to be the cadillac in the skies for the air force, the f-35 was supposed to be the chevrolet. >> the f-22 stopped at 187 airplanes. why? >> because of the engineering challenges, because of costs,

the pentagon and congress decided to do was to say, we cannot afford to build as many of these as we want. -- shrunk.l buy from. the overall cost, it is not that much lower. what you have, but the real tragedy is that the cost per plane is much greater than what was supposed to be. >> $400 million a plane. let's run some video. this is from the lockheed martin website. we have kept it just does we saw on the website. this is so we can see what it looks like and how lockheed promotes it to the public.

♪ >> what did you see there? >> boy, something i would love to fly in. you saw a video that both plays up america's combat air superiority.

it shows off a very sexy airplane. it was designed in a very futuristic way. nothing like those images of planes taking off and landing from ships to demonstrate american military might. very well produced ad that helps to -- there is a "top gun" element to this. we should have these. lockheed martin is the principal contractor building nests. >> how do they compared to other contractors? >> there are the largest contractor. they build a whole host of weapon systems, they do a lot of work for the military, classified work.

the biggest part of their business is providing hardware and other services to the defense department. >> if i read it right, it is run by a woman. >> yes,a number of our largest defense contractors are run by women. >> any reason why this has happened? >> it was fortuitous in some of these other firms. the rise of female executives has been occurring over time. at some of the nation's largest defense contractors. it shows just how women are breaking through the glass ceiling in a field that has been dominated by men. >> when you set out to do this article, where did you start?

>> i started by reaching out to some friends in the u.s. marine corps because i knew they were invested in the f-35. the f-35 is supposed to replace every marine combat airplane that they have. i spent a lot of time with marines in afghanistan. i want to learn more about this. in those initial conversations that led me to reach out to more people, to critics on the outside, but to folks at the air force, navy, to really borrow into this. what i learned very quickly is that this is a very complex program with a very troubled history and it was not something i would understand overnight. i spent weeks and weeks.

>> when did you start it? >> i started in the fall. i was distracted by of some other things, not the least of which was the resignation of david petraeus. and the scandal that was part of all of that. i came back to it earlier this year in large part -- in the fall, i was a little unsure. once it became clear that we were going to be going off the sequestration cliff, and issues of the future of the defense budgets, the scope and scale of its work coming to the floor, it took on -- the story of the troubles, the story of the giant costs is not new. a number of my esteemed colleagues in the press corps have written about it in recent

years. to me, all of this needed to be set in the debate that is now in washington about the federal budget. i thought, if i could examine this program through the lens of budget cutting that would be a new way to look at this and it might tell us we did not already know. >> i want to put on the screen a slide from your article. 2001, 2852 planes for $233 billion. move ahead 12 years, the --ntagon plan is 2443 plants, planes

for$397.1 billion. the design and production, $84 billion has already been spent. what happened? >> the price has almost doubled. we are getting fewer planes for much money. we have spent an enormous amount of money and the plane is only about 17% tested. the software code is to be written. the navy's variant still has not enabled to land on an aircraft carrier. the marine version still having engineering challenges. what that slide tells you is the sheer amount of money -- the growth of this program in terms of the initial estimate was so different from the reality. this reflects the technical

challenges. that is what lockheed martin would tell you. what critics will tell you is that this is a program that has run amok. it has run aground. it has run out of control. >> more video of the marine version, trying to work for your article showing how these planes could differ. here is the marine video. ♪

>> helicopter landing ship, not a regular carrier. why do they need that? >> the marines have 11 of those types of ships. amphibious assault ships. they have short decks. the marines want to continue to have fixed wing combat aircraft and fly them off of those. if we have a plane that can do that, that doubles the nation's carrier fleet the navy has 11 full-length aircraft carriers. you could put the ships in other parts of the world or if you were fighting a war can in a broader array and have those

ships serve as platforms to both launch those sorts of plans and bring them home. it is worth noting that version of the airplane is the costliest and most troubled one. the challenge of taking this fighter jet and getting it to land and take off like a helicopter. it is a massive engineering accomplishment, there is still a lot of kinks to be worked out. just getting to that point has involved billions and billions of dollars of design work. >> when did the f-35 planning process start? >> the program itself began in 2001. planning for began years before that.

the division was going to be a noble one. an idea that you build one aircraft and it would be used by three different services, at the air force, the marines, and the navy. air force planes could fly with navy planes, they would be able to talk to each other. you get these great economies of scale. that did not happen. in part because the services decided to -- the navy wanted theirs to fly off the carriers. the marines want to go up and down like this. the air force one of the planes to be stealthy, to fly longer ranges. you had these requirements that started to make each of the three versions more and more different. what was supposed to be an airplane that would have 70% similarity between the three versions now is about 70% different. that has been a big factor that has led to the increase in costs. >> chairman of the armed

services committee is not going to run again, we see a lot of him on this network. here he is talking about the f- 22. let's listen to his attitude about that a few years ago. >> this debate is not about whether or not we will have the capability of the f-22. about how many we should have and what cost. we are talking about whether or not we should accept the recommendations of two commanders in chief, two secretaries of defense, two chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, 187 f-22s is what we need and all that we can afford. who was pushing for more f-22s? >> members of congress from states where those planes are produced. and where lockheed martin has

some of its largest business interests as well as some of the key contractors. >> you say that 45 states have something to do with the f-35. i was on there website yesterday and it is up to 47. what is going on? you make a strong point of spread out the 47 states. why? >> critics call this political engineering. try to distribute as broadly as you can around the country so that you spread the employment around and you win support of members of congress from around the country so that it is not just this helps texas or georgia or california, virginia. but you get to smaller states, too, to help win new friends on capitol hill.

>> the list of the states and how much money they get for the f-35 and how many people are employed. california is number 1 with 27,000 jobs. not sure why texas has 41,000 with only $4.9 billion. those figures are movable. you can see which states have the most jobs at of all this. the chairman of the armed services committee is from california. we have a top 15. almost 1000 jobs at least. georgia, indiana, michigan, utah, vermont, washington. new jersey. how much of a political game is played about this business right here? >> lockheed martin would argue that it is only for official -- looking for sufficient suppliers around the country. those who are critical would say they are actively trying to

spread it around and there is no reason to do it other than to try to win political support. the bulk of the plane is built in texas and california. that is where the real work is being done. there is a benefit to having -- even a few dozen jobs in a small state, it is a way into trying to convince those members that this is a program that is worth $397.1 billion of our taxpayer money. >> i will pull out some quotes from your piece and you can explain it. we want to win 99 to nothing. 5 willconvinced the f-3 become a superstar in the arsenal of the united states. >> why i thought this was interesting is because it speaks

to the approach the air force is taking to aerial warfare. instead of saying, like the infantry in the army, that you will have some losses when you go into an operation. we will send planes to do some of these bombing runs. we may lose some of them. the air force wants to establish air superiority right away, like we did in the first goal for. -- like we did in the first gulf thereafter. and wants to get to a zero pilot loss standard for some of these conflicts. it wants to put in more and more enhancements, and that costs money. to try to make the planes faster, to evade enemy fire.

what you get are more expensive planes. >> who did you try to talk to who would not talk to you? or bob like don rumsfeld gates or leon panetta? or did you stay away from them? >> i stayed away from the senior most political leadership because their positions are pretty well known. what i wanted to do was to reach out to the three services and say, in an environment of a constricting budget, why do you want to spend some much money on this? i reached out to the pentagon office that is managing the program to understand what they were doing to fix this program. reached out to the company. and then to people outside the

military to get their perspective. >> how cooperative was lockheed martin? >> they were pretty cooperative. they made some of their executives available to me for interviews. they got me to sit in a flight simulator. just across the river in crystal city, virginia, not more than a 10-minute car ride from capitol hill, as part of their flight simulator center, it is a place where members of congress and their staff members and other government officials can go. it is a chance to show off the virtues of the airplane to the washington crowd. i did travel down to an air force base in florida to see the plane in action. on the florida panhandle in pensacola. >> is there a prison down there? >> good question.

>> something tells me that there were some watergate figures are in a prison down there. >> i tried to stay away from prison. >> sunday, march 10, was when this article was published. >> there are a lot of classified features on this airplane. it has a lot of electronic warfare capabilities. it has a lot of really high-tech -- sors that are able to the vacuum up data, see what is up on the ground from a distance and crunch it all through computing technology. there is a lot of capabilities to this airplane that the military and lockheed martin could not talk to me about. >> when the f-35 finishes

testing, there will be no yes or no, up or down decisions. that is totally deliberate, it was all in the name of ensuring it could not be cancelled. >> it speaks to what i think is the most remarkable way in which this program was designed. it helps evade budget cutters on capitol hill. normally you would think when you are designing an airplane, you build a prototype. you kick the tires. and then you decide, i will build it. or not. there is no prototype for the f-35. while we are still designing his plane, while millions of lines

of software still have to be written, lockheed martin has been authorized by the pentagon and paid to begin production of these planes. lockheed martin has built 65 of them for the military. it is only 17% tested. by the time the plane is fully tested in 2017, according to defense department estimates, we will have 365 of them. all the planes being built, but it cost money to go back and retrofit them. by the time is fully tested, may --maybe and has too many flaws, there will be so many of them, it will not make sense to cancel the program.

you already made the investment. >> here is some video of the air force you talked about. here is the f-35 air force version. from the lockheed martin website. ♪ >> f-35 airforce version, what is the difference between the f- 15 and the f-16? >> it is stealthy. look at the way it is designed. you do not see bombs and missiles hanging off of it. they're all in a weapons bay underneath.

it allows the plane to be more effectively to evade enemy radar. the plane is supersonic, like the f15 and f-16. faster than the speed of sound. it can accelerate that fast. what is most remarkable is you what the cockpit looks like. if you have been in a commercial jet, switches everywhere. circuit breakers, dials. the cockpit of the f-35, it looks futuristic and it looks like a cessna aircraft. >> did you sit in one? >> i did. it has these touchscreens -- this place that you can touch with your fingertip to execute demands. it has a control stick and a couple of other switches, but that is it. it has fewer than two dozen switches.

it is all computerized. it is incredibly futuristic. i was asking a lockheed martin official, w do pilots adapt to this? he said for the older guys is a lot tougher. you have the ipad generation. it is all intuitive for them. if you walk to identify or hits a target, you are looking at the video display. the plane knows and computes how to hit it. >> who are we worried about? >> that is a good question. the defense department, lockheed martin, would say there are a big nation states out there who still have sophisticated air forces. they do not take off names specifically, but all of us know

they're referring to countries continuing--which is to build and develop its air capabilities. >> same level? >> no. this is a generation more dance -- more advanced than anything else. people you are concerned about cost say, but do you really need something the sophisticated? do you need this many of them? could you not achieve some of this more efficiently? they also argue that advancements in unmanned aviation policy progressing so

fast that 10 years from now, some of the staff may be obsolete because we will be doing a lot more of its with unmanned technology. >> more political examples of this, this goes back to december 5, 2011, senator john mccain. >> in a nutshell, the program has been both a scandal in a tragedy. the program has been in development phase for 10 years. over that time, it has been a beneficiary of $56 billion of taxpayer investment. we still do not have an aircraft that provides the air force, navy, marine corps with the combat capability they need. >> what happens after that? the u.s. marine corps, the most politically adept of all the services, decides to station the first operational squads of f- 35s. they are not really operating yet.

they invite john mccain. it might be good to read what he has to say when he comes to that ceremony. it is very different than what he said on the floor of the senate. >> this is a long article and i cannot get my finger on it. >> he strikes a far more conciliatory tone. he is far less critical of the program. >> what happened to him and his attitude? >> it is a source of employment for his family. -- for his state. with the marines bringing the squadron, that will bring jobs. >> in your article, you quote an electrical engineer who worked as a manager beginning in 2001 said the development effort was beset with tremendous andanizational inadequacies.

-- >>why, after all these years, would they be in this type of position? >> no one was paying attention in washington. this program kicks off in 2001. what happens this year? 9/11 attacks. the war in afghanistan. the leadership of the pentagon was so consumed with those wars, they never paid attention to weapons procurement programs. at least weapons programs that were not directly related to the ongoing wars.

as this program was having these early troubles, there was no adult leadership at the pentagon. lockheed martin, this mismanagement my source talks about, it was not worried at that point of the pentagon coming down and scolding it because it knew that nobody was watching. >> this is only a 30-second clip. he is talking about another issue regarding the f-35. this was back in 2010. >> all across america, families are tightening their belts, making good with less. -- making do with less. they expect the same from congress. i imagine their frustration when they hear congress is pushing forward with an unnecessary $3 billion program.

only in washington could a company that lost competition in the private sector and already controls 88% of the military come seeking a government directed subsidy and call that competition. >> what is he talking about? >> the alternative engine. for years, another reason why people work has focused on the -- what people were not as focused on the bigger problems with the airplane, compress was trying to push on to the defense department's and another engine for his plane. the engine for the aircraft that the pentagon wanted is being built by pratt whitney. some members of congress were pushing a second engine built by the rival contractor in large part because of political -- the

hope among some that it would lead to jobs in their states. it was a classic case of congress foisting on the defense department something it did not want to the tune of $3 billion. it was a double sideshow and distracted from some of the greater problems and challenges. >> does any other country in the world have this set up? >> no. no other country spends nearly what we do on this. >> is it good or bad that congress is involved? >> it is hopeful that congress acts as a check on some of these runaway programs. in many cases, congress is trying to push the pentagon to

it staff that it does not want to do. members of congress wanted for their own interest. we continue to build tanks in ohio. why do we do that? members of the ohio delegation want the jobs. the army does not think it needs any more tanks. >> there is a quote in your about the marine corps' ability to get what it wants. i think it is an army officer. >> why does the navy army need its own air force? the answer goes back to world war ii. the marine corps felt abandoned on the pacific islands. since then, they have insisted on bringing their own combat aviation to fight. if you look at iraq and

afghanistan, there were persistent on bringing their own helicopters, their own jets. i write about how the marines, because of their desire to bring their own al craft -- aircraft, wound up going to part of the country that was far less strategically significant than where they should have gone. it is that same thinking that drives the marines to want the f-35. we need to have the same kind of combat aviation gear force on -- that the air force and the marines do. do they really? does marine corps really need to be able to participate in the first strike attack? those of the fundamental questions that members of congress do not really talk about when it comes to looking at programs like this.

>> has the navy landed one of these f-35's carriers yet? >> no. >> the actual plane is never seen with the arresting gear. ♪ >> that is from the lockheed martin website. >> that is a navy variant taking off. >> why can it not land on a carrier yet?

>> they have not designed the appropriate -- it is complex engineering, but to be able to hook the arresting wires.a need to be sufficient length. the way the plane is designed, the hook has to be far from the back and that creates its own set of challenges. this is what happens when you try to build one size fits all. it becomes much harder to meet these requirements. >> i want to put back on the screen the slide that shows the amount of money and the number of planes that will be spent. and the change over the last few years. on the screen, in 2001, at 2852 planes for $233 billion. 2013, the plan was for far less.

production, $84 billion. when they give the cost to anybody, the pentagon, lockheed martin, do they put in the cost of the research and development? >> in this phase, yes. that is part of it. when they move beyond the design phase, that does not become factored in. >> what is the cost of this airplane now? >> $160 million apiece. >> what will be in a few years? >> they claim it will drop to around $100 billion. $100 million, pardon me. a little more for the marine version. a little less for the air force version. >>ose are operational targets. what are they paying for an s 18?

>> much less. driving the navy to re- examine whether it wants to buy committed35's it has to our whether he can get away sith the more advanced f-18' for the moment and wait for additional advancements in unmanned technology. maybe get out entirely or by far fewer of them. >> with a military contract, how much would they have to pay lockheed martin? >> they have to pay some sort of penalty. it would be a fraction of what they're planning to spend on these planes. >> you were the editor-in-chief of the "stanford daily." i want to take a break to get some background. i want to show you an appearance

that you had on this network back in 1998. >> what we are seeing in the internet is so young and it is emerging so quickly. in the real world, we know there is a different standard for the "national enquirer" than "the new york times." it is not clear on the internet. a lot of people who were subscribing to a website not known much about it, there is no longstanding reputation. >> what were you doing back then? >> looked so young. >> you're not exactly old. >> a lot of gray hair between then and now. >> that is what i wanted to get to, you have been at "the post" for 19 years. how much time have you spent on

the military? >> the best part of the last decade. i was a foreign correspondent in southeast asia when 9/11 occurred. i quickly turned into a war correspondent. i was in pakistan a couple of days after 9/11 and eventually into afghanistan. the following summer, i moved to the middle east. i started going into iraq. it was still under the control of saddam hussein. i spent the following two years running our bureau in baghdad. i came back to write a book about the iraq war. i did some management jobs at the newspaper. i was the national editor during the 2008 cycle. managing in the news room -- after my stint in management, there was nothing i wanted to do more than run off to another war.

from 2009 through last year, i covered the war in afghanistan. split in my time between washington, d.c., and afghanistan. i wrote that book you are holding up. >> you have the hardback version. we have gone through 10 years of the iraq war. >> the longest war in our nation's history. >> when you look back, did we get our money's worth? was it worth losing over 5000 people? >> iraq? >> both iraq and afghanistan. > iraq, god. the true financial cost, north of a trillion dollars. lost almost 4500 lives, countless thousands of others gravely wounded.

we have a government there that is -- i make no excuses for saddam hussein. we have a government there which is more closely aligned with iran than it is with the united states. we have a fundamental political issue unresolved between the principal groups in iraqi society. all for what? there were no weapons of mass destruction. it is a stretch to argue that the liberation of iraq led to the arab spring. i think we will be wrestling for a long time with the overall question of -- i think it was good thing to get rid of saddam hussein, but at that price tag, there is no way it was worth more than a trillion dollars and as many lives as it cost. >> you did a piece on march 15.

we have to go back. this is a myth. the troop surge succeeded. >> it was supposed to be a two- part and ever. improve security. you can bring those principal factions together to force a grand agreement. you have some longer-term stability. the surge improved security, iraqi leaders did not take advantage of that security to force the necessary compact. >> iraq is relatively peaceful. >> horrendous attacks occur almost daily or weekly. a lot of residents of baghdad would tell you it is far from peaceful. >> iraq is a democracy. >> on paper, it is.

but the prime minister is moving to consolidate a lot of power in ways that are disenfranchising political rivals and leading many iraqis to see echoes of saddam hussein. >> when is the next election? >> a couple years. >> will he run again? >> i believe he is term limited out. but who knows. >> iraq is in iran's pocket? >> iraq and iran are very closely allied, but when you look at permission to fly planes over the airspace -- to provide supplies to the syrian dictator bashar al-assad, there is one view that he is being forced to do so because the iranian pressure. he has his own reasons to want

to have the iranians support assad. if the syrian rebels topple the government in damascus, they will work in concert with iraq's minority sunni population to further destabilize his government. >> your final myth is the americans have already left. >> we have hundreds of personnel there. our largest embassy in the world is in baghdad. the cia has hundreds there. there is still a robust american presence in iraq. >> your personal reaction to general petraeus' situation when he had to leave the cia and stanley mcchrystal when he had to leave his post. what was your personal reaction? >> i was surprised by both. petraeus, a man who preaches great virtue.

talked a lot about the importance of character. it was not something i expected. i am not the only one among the people who know him to have been deeply surprised and saddened by that. mcchrystal, i spent a lot of time with him. i never heard members of his staff say the sorts of things that was in the rolling stone piece. i am not trying to say that did not happen, i was surprised his public affairs officer would not such particular ground rules -- would not set clear ground rules with the reporter and i was surprised that he did not give a -- he did not get a good spanking. and then resume his command. instead, the president accepted his offer of resignation.

>> when he wrote his book, he never named michael hastings. was that a smart thing to do? why weren't more reporters inquisitive of him? he never explained himself in depth on that. >> i would like to see more. it has now led him to a remarkable career transition where he is teaching at yale university. he has opened up a consulting firm which is doing very innovative work. he has not gone away. he is a brilliant guy. a very capable leader. i would like to have seen him talk a little bit more about some of the lessons he has taken away from that episode.

10 piece, your march so the obvious can see dust of the audience can see what it looks like -- too big to bail. didight be how it has ebay budget cuts and gotten the government to stand by it. this man here, you write about, did you meet him? >> no. that was another base. >> back to the politics of this. here is lindsey graham on the floor. are we going to have less airplanes? >> we will have to have less airplanes. >> what happens to the f 35. >> it depends on what they are going for. say the administration goes fully into effect. >> it'll be hard to modernize. >> it'll be impossible the way

we would currently like to. >> would that make it more difficult to go into a situation like an attack on iran? >> yes, sir. our kick in the door capability would be impacted. >> senator graham still in the air force? >> [indiscernible] going on there? >> he was talking about the impact of sequestration on the f 35 program. initially, it is not much of an impact. a couple points here, not a big deal. question, what would happen if a further rounds of cuts take place. but that discussion really which the central issue is how many overall planes does the military need? does the marine corps need its own version? does the navy need this? many can united states really afford? >> making too much noise here with your paper, but it is a big

spread both inside -- two full pages on this. how hard is it today with the shrinking size of newspapers to get this large of a story in the newspaper? >> it is not as easy as it once was, but when you have a story that is important, when it touches upon key issues in washington, and when you can tell it in a compelling way, i found that i can still build the necessary support of the editors. >> what kind of reaction did you get to this? from people within the military, the political leadership of our government, certain members of congress, it got a lot of traction. it is not a brand-new story.

it has just been told in a different way. at this moment, it was something that helps to clarify a set of issues and got a lot of residents. read thisto paragraph. about 100m supports 33,000 u.s. jobs in 45 states and puerto rico and includes both lockheed martin employees and employees of the programs of suppliers. the only states without suppliers are alaska, hawaii, louisiana, north dakota, and wyoming. , i saw on theier website that two more states had been added. >> yes. >> do they do that and study that on purpose? >> the company would denied, but its critics say, sure. they are looking for how to spread that wealth as broadly as possible. u.s. states.t

there are suppliers around the world. >> how many different countries are going to buy this aircraft once it is completed? >> eight countries have committed. the hope is they will sell it to more but some of those countries have not just committed. they have already invested money up front. this is yet another barrier to states because it united buys fewer airplanes, it dries up -- drives up the cost per plane for allies. or is a diplomatic cost of their. let's say united states were to buy -- that raises the cost for britain which is counting on the f 35 to replace all of its harrier jets on its aircraft carrier. >> what is that? f the marine version of the 35. it can land and take off vertically. it is not as sophisticated as

the f 35. >> i read a lot of countries want to get it. candidate wants 65, australia once 100. when you look back at this piece , what would be a follow-up? where would people be able to go to find out more information if they wanted more detail. >> it is a good question. there are some good work that has been done by the government accountability office. written some very good reports. some of the best work has been done by those organizations. if you want to delve into this, do a google search for the f 35 and you will come up with some good material. >> what is a follow-up for you? otherm looking at some budget issues going forward. just because it consumes an

amount of our budget. it is important to look at some of the trade-offs here. as we go forward, what can we afford and what is important for our national defense. what are the sorts of things we waste money on. who in you wrote this, your mind were you writing for? how did you appeal to them? whites i tried to make the plane >> issential character -- tried to make the plane the essential character. if they are complex and filled with jargon. i try to step back and say, how can i tell this in a way that would be engaging to people? i figured a way to do this would be to focus on the plane itself. >> two books you have out. one is called the imperial city -- imperial life in the emerald city.

thank you very much for joining us. >> great to talk to you again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> for a dvd copy of this 662-7726.call 1-877- for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit q-and-a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as podcasts. on the f 35ave more program in just a moment. first, news on the sentencing of bradley manning. he leaked classified documents

to wikileaks. he received 35 years in prison at sentencing for those leaks. yearseaction that says 35 as a light sentence given the vast damage he did to our national security and the need to strand -- to send a strong signal to others who may be tempted to share classified information to others. this is a dangerous conclusion. in the meantime, more from the f 35 fighter program from today's washington journal. our topic for the next hour, the future of the program.

where are we? we have simulators and it is a way to communicate this leap and capability. who are you demonstrating it to? who visits the dumbest ration center? guest: we have the navy, marine corps, and the air force. we also have eight international partners. we continue to add more partners, more countries to the program. israel and japan have committed to buy the airplane. this allows us to communicate

that difference in washington, d.c., to the decision-makers on the program. host: you have visits from members of congress as well. what is the purpose for them to see the center? guest: they can fly the simulator and they can see the technology and the jobs. 125,000 direct and indirect jobs, building the f-35. these are high tech aerospace jobs that will be part of our aerospace industry for years and years to come. they are building high technology avionics. they are doing things with software that make this a next- generation airplane. they are also building it for airport. we have about $50 billion of export value.

host: let's talk about the history and the goals of the f- 35. what is its mission? guest: the program was built to recapitalize the fighter forces that are out there today. look at the last 20 years of operations, whether it is bosnia or libya. fighter aviation enables air time operations and land operations. our fighter fours is getting older. we have 40% less fighters after desert storm. that fighter fours is getting older. today the average age is approaching 25 years old. look at the potential threat that is out there today.

russia and china are working on no less than fighters that are flying in generation today. they are advancing surface to air missiles to take away this advantage of the fighters we have had in the united states for years and years to come. we need to invest and we need to recapitalize. it is those eight partner countries. it brings the next-generation technology. this allows our pilots to go where they need to go when they need to go. this builds on the technology in the f-35 and advances it 10 years along. it brings increased range. it is stealth where it needs to go and is advanced avionics to

use the advantage of the technology. is the excess rains to go further than we have before. that is the advantage of the f- 35. host: all the different branches of the government are going to have a variation of f-35. how will they differ across the branches? what are the challenges for making a different one for each of the branches? guest: they have different basing requirements. is made to take off and land from conventional runways for the air corps. is made to come back and operate at expedition are airfields across the world. for the u.s. navy version, it is

made to take off and land off of catapults with tail hoax. the challenges are on the basic requirements. right now the short takeoff, we are out for the second time off the east coast of the united states. we are doing short takeoffs with over 40,000 pounds in less than 500 feet and then coming back and landing vertically at sea at night and daytime. we're doing those operations today. for the navy, we're taking off and landing off big aircraft decks at sea. yesterday we did catapults operations. we are doing that with the tail hook and that tends to be a challenge.

this is the first stealth airplane for the air force and navy. i flew missions that were generally air to air missions or air to ground. f-35 will expand the mission set. you will be able to do electronic attacks, intelligence operations, reconnaissance operations, command and control operations we never saw and a fighter jet before. that is the value of the f-35. we are able to do it in a much more efficient manner. why is southwest airlines so successful? they fly a single airplane. their maintenance crews are

trained on a single airplane. that is the value of f-35. now you have a single supply chain. you have an airplane that is common across the three u.s. services. you have the eight partner countries. we are sharing that burden and the national security and cooperation among our best allies. that is the value of f-35. host: that is our topic, the future of f-35. we are joined by steve o'bryan. we will take your questions and comments in just a minute. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880.

we have a fourth line for active and retired military, 202-585- 3883. let's talk about the cost of the f-35. total estimate program costs now is $400 billion, nearly twice the initial cost from original estimates. why is that? guest: right now we're driving the cost down. we underestimated the development and flight tests. but the program is on track. we're driving the price down. we have reduced the cost of the airplane by over 55%. we are going to continue to drop this price of the airplane.

in 2018, the average cost will be $85 million, about $75 million in today's dollars. is a quantum leap in capability. we are focused on reducing the cost. we continued to reduce it to about the same price as a fourth generations of airplanes out there today. host: back to the costs from the gao.

host: respond to those numbers. guest: i think this airplane is cost effective overall. it will replace three different make models of airplanes. those three airplanes have three separate supply chains and seven crew men. they have separate infrastructure. the marines the place those airplanes with just one f-35 and just one pilot. that will save the nation almost $1 billion a year. we are replacing a multitude of airplanes in the u.s. and we are doing this with a single type of avionics to drive down the cost. the international component --

now you have eight partner countries and japan and israel contributing $5 billion to the development of the airplane. they also contribute to the tooling. every airplane for the u.s. services is $10 million less because of the international participation. i flew jets in combat operations. our capabilities were inoperable. now with the f-35, our best allies are going to have the same airplanes, same capabilities. the value will be extremely high for coalition operations. that is what the f-35 brings.

host: let me get to phone calls. stanley in utah, go ahead. caller: i have a question. how does the 35 stand up against the f-22? is it like the f-22? guest: they are made to be synergetic. they are both stealth. they both use different avionics. they are made to work in concert. f-22 is an air to air airplane. like intelligence gathering and command and control.

those are the things they f-35 does. eight partner countries. we believe more countries will join the program in the future. it is made to operate with the f-22. host: john is retired military in jacksonville, florida. caller: how are you doing today? good morning. how much longer can we sustain the f-15 and f-16? i am retired and we have f-16. what about the countermeasures? will be comparable to the

russians? guest: thank you. what can we do? just like the car that you drive. those airplanes were designed in the nixon administration. you are buying the f-35 not just for today's threat but for the next 50-plus years. is a software-intensive airplane to outpace the threat. the f-35 continues that advantage. the f 35 is designed to do that. we have been doing stealth airplanes far longer than in china and russia. the f-35 builds upon that

technology. the threat is not stagnant. the threat continues to evolve. the f-35 is built to do that. this allows us to continue to outpace the threat. this is the right airplane for the next 50 years. host: we have a tweet. guest: we have over 100 airplanes that have rolled out of the factory. we have 75 airplanes flying

today. we are doing development test in pax river. 30 airplanes are doing training. we have operations going on at marine corps air stations yuma. we are on the east coast doing short takeoffs and vertical landings. we have eight countries under contract to buy the f-35. we continue to do flight tests. air to air missiles. we have our laser guided bombs. those are being dropped off of f-35 today. we are increasing the production and dropping the price. we believe the f-35 is

progressing to -- we our focused on doing that in 2015. host: 2015 is when they will be ready for war? guest: the marine corps has declared 2015 is the target. we have an operational squadron. there are jets landing and taking off off an amphibious ship. they are training and operating and we are upgrading the airplane to be ready for combat and to support the marine corps. host: peter from new york on our republican line. you have to turn the television down. talk to me through the phone. you are on the air. what is your question or comment?

caller: when will the f-35 be ready to go into combat? host: you just said 2015. is it just for one branch of the military? guest: 2016 for the air force. they are setting for operations. we will be deploying airplanes by the beginning of next year in arizona as well as the next operational aircraft. the air force is planning on having a squadron of 12 to 24 airplanes that will be ready for combat. this will be an airplane capable of doing precision air to air and air to ground missions. it was built for range. eight has upgraded avionics. it takes what we have that i

flew and puts it in a fifth generation capability. this allows you to do what you need to do with advanced avionics and long-range to do it in many different places. that is the beauty of f-35. and we are providing to our allies. host: we will keep talking with steve o'bryan. we will keep taking your phone calls and getting your questions and comments. pedro is live from the center to talk more about the technological uniqueness of the f-35. host: we're at the f-35 demonstration center at lockheed martin.

probably the closest thing you'll see two flying an f-35. what is most impressive is what is inside the cockpit. joining us is elliott clemence. an f-35 test pilot. thank you for joining us.>> sure. >> i see a lot of touch grains instead of switches and dials. why is that? guest: having a touch screen reduces workload for the pilot. back in the old days, there is around 150-plus knobs and switches and displays. with the touch screen, your workload is greatly reduced. you can focus on the tactical situation.with that, you can

have enhanced situational awareness, which affects your survivability. if the pilot is not as busy flipping knobs and switches, then he can pay more attention to the big picture.and be more lethal as a tactical pilot. host: you can do -- this tells you your weapons capability. this is the overall function of the plane. walk us through some of these other things. guest: this is our tactical isplay.what that does this is our primary display for deploying weapons. we have synthesized information presented to us in a simple and

coherent format.we have our infrared search and track and this is our system which is infrared around the airplane. host: this will give you a real- time sense of what is going on inside the plane. guest: is different from legacy fighters. is very intuitive to operate. host: what happens if electronics fail?as they sometimes do? guest: in the case of this display, will we have is a panoramic cockpit display that is divided into two parts. their management computers computers,hose if one goes out, another takes over.so we do have a fair amount of redundancy. over here we have the throttle. just a standard stick throttle. over here we have the throttle.

both of those interceptors have various switches and knobs so the pilot does not have to touch the touch screen while he is can do a lot. there is a voice-recognition system, so we can tell them simple tasks. makes it easier. >> yes, this type of display is necessary. it is unique in that it has sensors embedded throughout the fuselage, and we need a big touchscreen, like the one you see here. >> worst-case scenario?

>> you would have this display to fly off of, so that would base.you to return to >> what was the learning curve from going to switches and dials and going to a touch screen? >> it is different. you have to -- for me training time was very minimal because the airplane is so easy to fly. it's 10 hours in the simulator, academics and one flight then you're there. new generations with kids coming through, they'll adapt to this quickly. >> he will be with us for awhile, and this is the

simulator or the cockpit demonstrator. part of what you do here deals with the helmet you wear. >> this isn't the only display in the airplane. our helmet acts as a functional display as well. we're going to talk about how that works and how the sensors integrate into the helmet. >> elliott clemence with us to talk about that as we take a look at the f-35 fighter. elliott clemence, thank you. host: we'll go back later and talk about the different aspects of the technology that goes into the f-35 but back to steve o'bryan, our guest there at the fire demonstration center. the gao report that we touched on earlier talked about the different challenges what go into the technology for the f-35 and the gao's report said one of the biggest headaches is the lagging effort to write the complex software that is needed for the f-35. can you respond to that. >> well, certainly we have challenges out there today. software is a key challenge. this airplane carries 8.6 million lines of code.

just to give you an idea of that capability versus prior generation. prior generations have only about one million lines of code. we have about 86% of that code flying today. we've coded over 95%. but the key challenge is integration of it and the flight test. we've done a number of things to derisk or enable that to arrive on time. so we added about 200 software engineers to the program. we added over $100 million lag to the program to test the software. we also added pair planes into the flight test program. so we attack the problem and the entire value stream of it. the results are extremely promising. we've done the first three loads of the next generation of the software on time this year. we've done the critical design review for the next bit of software. so that capability is out there flying today. we're doing fusion it operations.

we're flying the sensors. we're doing night landings on the uss wasp and we're flying the airplane at high angles of attack. so the software is very stable. the software is performing well. we understand there's a key challenge in front of us and we added the resources and the personnel as well as the talent throughout our corporation to make it successful. so this is a key challenge. we are recognizing that and we're adding resources. host: explain buy before you fly and why this is being manufactured before it's been completely tested? guest: right now we understand one of the key challenges we had was doing development production and flight test at the same time. we really underestimated the challenge associated with that. together with the u.s. government we reduced the

profile to where we are today, and we put resources in approximately three years and the results are extremely promising. as the secretary of defense said, the program is on track. we're producing the airplane under cost from what the u.s. government estimates are. we've reduced the price of the airplane from the first year of production to the seventh year of production by more than 55%. we have six different basing locations where we're operating the f-35.and we are testing it to the edges of the envelope. we're adding more international partners to reduce the cost. we've taken measures to reduce what's called con currency or that development program and the results demonstrate that we've been on track and we're reducing cost. host: what happened in the past that made these cost go up.

"the l.a. times" reported, fewer planes higher cost, over the past decade, the per plane cost of the f-35 fighter program has doubled. guest: certainly this program has had challenges in the past. i can tell you what's happened over the last three years of the program. that is really a program that's continuing to hit milestones.we have completed our durability tests. we're flyinged mission system of the airplane. we're working the radar, electronic attack. we're testing and have verifying the stealth tributes of the -- attributes of the airplane. we're hitting our milestones, we're driving down cost in front of the u.s. government estimates. this program as the secretary of defense said, is on track. we do have challenges in the future and we will as a development program. we're prepared for it. we have the resources for it and

we're fixing those problems as we go. host: joe is next retired military. caller: good morning. if drone technology and cruise missiles are already proven and effective, why do we need something like the f-35? we put men at risk and all we're doing is continuing the military and industrial complex? guest: joel, thanks for your question and service. when i talk about drones, they all have a purpose, and cruise missiles, as well. really where i see the value of drones and where we see it, is in missions where it's not physiologically possible for pilots to go or the extended time in a cockpit does not make sense. you see that in long range high altitude missions. again, the fighter airplanes are core to our national security. drone aircraft, u.a.v., they rely on a highly dynamic environment to be downloaded and

things and systems that could be at risk from jamming and other capabilities. it's not a question of whether these airplanes are -- they're not really unmanned. they're uninhabited. so the manpower is there, the cost is there. we can't jeopardize our security by having our daddling's jammed. our datalinks jammed, and it provides the capabilities to keep our pilots safe in a stealth airplane and fifth generation airplane. it allows to have a man or woman in the loop to make shows decisions that -- make those decisions. we believe the f-35 is the right answer to maintain that capability above my threat adversary. for not only the three u.s. services. but our best allies in the

world. host: independent line, steve in littleton, massachusetts. caller: as i listen to this, i think poor steve o'bryan must need medication to sleep. all we hear about is threats, national security, national security. it's like a bad joke becoming a nightmare. as if the united states is the most besieged nation on earth rather than the protagonist, uninterrupted mass murder. provocations all over the world industriallitary and complex. that as the previous called said, president eisenhower warned about. what the world need is housing and securitying and not f-35's. all the murdurous rest. host: steve o'bryan, your reaction. guest: i can tell you what lockheed martin is focused on. we're focused on implementing

and helping with the policy of the united states. we're focused on giving our best to our war fighters out there. our young men and women out there protecting us. i can talk about the last 20 years of operation. you can look at desert storm, iraqi freedom, bosnia, and afghanistan. these are the operations of the last 20 years and fighter airplanes have been a core competency to implementing u.s. government policy as well as protecting our young men and women not just in the air but on the ground and at sea. these f-35's maintain that advantage for years and years to come. they have stealth. i can tell you as a former fighter pilot that stealth airplanes gives you an advantage that doesn't allow a fair fight. so f-35 is basically invisible to enemy airplanes and you have a first look, first shot and you're able to win any engagement that we have and to deter any engagement that we might have. the advance avionics allow us to

know the battlefield, understand the battlefield as well as the environment we're operating in a huge and better fashion we've had. many of these are core to what we're doing, protecting our troops and giving them the best technology that we have available. host: james is also a retired military in michigan. independent. caller: hi, steve. guest: hello, sir. caller: my concern of the f-35, i worked on a flight deck back in the 1970's. it doesn't really have a good track record. mission specific airplanes do a lot better than a one plane all mission type aircraft. thank you. guest: thanks for your question.

and, again, for your service on the kennedy. as i look at multirole airplanes, i flew f-18's for over 20 years. f-35 is designed to do more than just air to air than air to ground. it's built with the next generation radar. it's really the miniature of technology that we have today. now the radar that we have that i flew, we had a single radar dish. one radar, the f-35 has over a thousand. it's not just a radar on the f- 35 that allows electronic attack. it's also a sensor in terms of the ability to hear and listen electronic warfare signals. through the miniaturization of technology we're able to do so many different things. stealth enables us to do that. in air to ground we're able to go where we can't go in fourth generation airplanes. stealth

allow us to get in closer to areas of interest, take pictures, infrared, other data that's out there.and then pass it to the national security apparatus, for them to make decisions. really the f-35 through miniaturization through advanced avionics as well as the range to go places that other airplane or planes cannot and they haven't been, that allows the f-35 to really redesign the multirole fighter. it's disadvancement that makes it good. not to recapitalize the u.s. navy.but others and our alliees into the future.

host: gary is watching us on the republican line. caller: i was wondering steve you mentioned eight countries are involved in buying your f- 35's. what are the six countries other than israel and japan? guest: israel and japan, you have the united kingdom under contract, netherlands is under contract, norway, australia and italy and the three u.s. services. those are the countries that are under contract. we also have as a partner program, we have canada as well as denmark a part of the partnership. although due to buy at a later date. these are the world's greatest air force are under contract to the 2e f-35.this drives core parts. it's the economy's scale and economies of commonlity. no longer, i was a former navy fighter pilot, do longer do you have a separate supply chain for the navy. no longer do you have a separate electronic warfare, radar all of different upgrades you have to do with software just for a

particular navy airplane. now you have it for u.s. navy, u.s. marine corps and u.s. air force where it's common. then you add the international partner, japan and israel in a software-intensive airplane. that means that everyone contributes to the development. everyone contributes to fair share. that's really the value of f-35 and its ability to be upgraded. host: steve o'bryan explain international sales process quickly. how do these countries buy the f-35? do they buy it from lockheed martin or they're buying it through the u.s. government? guest: what is key is this is a government to government agreement. they buy the airplane through the united states government. and the program office. the u.s. government is creating these partnerships not just with the eight international partners on the development but japan and israel.

again, this is government to government where you foster international relations. you have political relationships and industrial relationships as we build portions of the airplane in each of these countries. then you have military to military relationships. this airplane really enables those for years and years to come. when you talk about coalition operation, that's really where f-35 excels. i participated in a number of coalition operations and imagine separate supply change. imagine having to get parts from different countries deployed all over the world and think about it with f-35. now everyone has a common supply chain to pull from. whether you're operations in libya or desert storm and iraqi freedom or afghanistan. now you have a common fleet with next generation capability driven to drive down a lifecyclely cost of the airplane. that is really the core value proposition behind f-35. not just today but for the next 50 plus years. host: we're going to keep taking your phone calls. your comments and questions of

steve o'bryan of lockheed martin. first we want to go back to pedro also at the demonstration to learn more about what goes into flying the f-35. >> we've been talking about components of the f-35. you saw the cockpit before and now another part of private gear, the helmet. now, on the outside, this looks like any ordinary helmet. but, elliott clemence, this is not an ordinary helmet. >> this is an f-35 helmet. what makes this helmet unique is that not only does it protect your head but it also displays video. in a normal airplane that we have today or legacy aircraft we have, a head up display which is about 15 degrees field of view. with this helmet you get 360 degrees field of view. you can also display sensor

video in your visor. >> just so the folks at home see, what i'm seeing through this helmet you can see on the video screen. tell us about what's being seen as far as the pilot perspective. >> what we have here is a replica an example. we have six sensors that are flush mounted in the fuse lodge -- fuselage of the f-35. that video is turned into your home and displayed on your visors.in effect, you can look your cockpit, you can look anywhere around and you can see that infrared video. >> the folks at home should see that. if you look at the screen instead of looking at the bottom of the cockpit. what am i seeing?

>> you're seeing the synthesized combined image of all of the sensors on the airplane. what that allows us to do as well is not only make targeting much easier for the pilot but also it turns the night into day. pilots have greatly enhanced situational awareness and they have the ability to do things they never could do in legacy aircraft. >> elliott clemence, in order to get these perspective, would have to physically turn the plane to get these shots? >> that's correct. you would have to roll in on the target to make sure that your weapons designated on the target. with this helmet, we need to look down through our cockpit and make sure that we are targeting the right threat. >> we talked about security, what happens if short out and that impede your ability to fly the plane? >> absolutely not. we have a large levels of redundancy built into the helmet. if it were to go out for a power reason of some kind, simply we

can still operate the airplane. >> talk a little bit about the learning curve. you talked about how technology the certain learning curve for other pilots. is it a distraction at the beginning? >> it does take a little bit of getting used to. it's very intuitive. you learn quickly how to use it and when to use it and when to fly with your standard symbolologies. if you're on a night mission and you want to find your wingman, it's simply a switch in the cockpit and you're get the sensor video and you can see through the airplane and you can see threat aircraft. when you go back down into your display, you can just touch that switch again. >> it's another part of the f-35 this one directly on the pilot as he pilots the plane. elliott clemence, thanks again. >> thanks again. host: we are live from the lockheed martin fighter demonstration center in arlington, virginia. steve o'bryan is there as well.

he's vice president of the company. steve o'bryan we just heard little bit about the helmet and the technology that's being used. according to a report from the pentagon recently, there has been problems with this technology from radars that don't work to blurry vision from from the aircraft's sophisticated helmet to inability to fly through crowds. the report includes pilot comment paints a picture of the jet nowhere near ready for real life operation. guest: with the f-35 program there's no denying it's a development program. our job in a development program is to find problems as early as possible and fix them. that's what we're doing. if you look at the secretary of defense, his testimony in front of congress this year, he said the program is on track. as we work through these problems, we're continuing to fly the airplane. you can see that confidence coming through on the services and their initial operating capability decision. u.s. marine corps held fast in

2015. u.s. air force accelerated their operation capability to 2016. this is a program that find problems and fix problems and move along. you can see that in the pace of development. and flight operations, we've completed nearly 9000 flight hours now on the f-35 program. what's key to that is over the last 12 months, 50% of those operations have taken place. we're increasing the production of the airplane. last year we delivered 30 airplanes, and this year we're going to deliver 36. we're increasing the production. we're increasing the pace of flight operations and the development. what i hear from the pilots and when they fly the airplane is they truly see the next generation capability that they have in the f-35. host: so, steve, the problem with the helmets have been resolved?

guest: right now we've flown the helmet successfully on every flight since 2007. when you talk to the pilots when you go down to the air base in florida, they tell me they love the helmet. they continue to resolve what were the technical difficulties earlier in the program. as we do in a development program. we've eliminated the green glow and the challenges with the elimatedwe've the key challenge. we look forward to a decision on the f-35 helmet and whether it will be the sole helmet this airplane has. host: we have a little bit less than 10 minutes here with steve o'bryan. for viewers of the program note, tomorrow on the "washington journal," we're going to be talking with defense reporter frank, again the future of the -- steve,

darrell tweets this, what happens when china gets on the web, download the plan and builds the f-35 at a fraction of the cost? guest: i can tell you f-35 provides unique capability that's unmatched. we perspective that capability as you expect any crown jewel. really the f-35 is made and designed to continue to out pace the fifth generation potential adversaries out there today. we build upon the f-117, we build upon the b2 and the f-22 to bring the f-35. we designed it to be a software reprogrammable airplane. this allow us to continue to upgrade the airplane. continue to expand the capability without expensive hardware changes. we use what is kind of the economies of scale that we have with three u.s. services, eight partner countries, japan, israel

and a growing list of internationals. this allows us to focus the efforts on upgrading the airplane, continuing to out pace the threat and continuing to have that advantage over enemy that could be out there today and tomorrow. host: william is next, cypress, texas, democratic caller. caller: i'm curious to know, why do the american people believe in anything this guy says when he works for lockheed martin? it's unbelievable. we can't afford anything now. why are we spending so much money on a plane that we don't know works. this guy here, he's unbelievable. i just can't believe we're going to spend money on a fighter that we don't need. host: ok, william, and, steve o'bryan, what about affording a plane during a time of economic agility and spending cuts happening in washington?

guest: this plane is essential to our national security. if you take a look at the airplanes we have, they were originally designed in the nixon administration and they're getting old. the average age of a u.s. air force fighter is approximately 24 years old today. we reduced that size of our fighter force in the u.s. air force by more than 40% in the last 20 years. this is made to smartly recapitalize what is our core competency with a capability that's built for the next 50 plus years. it needs to be upgraded. we need to do it smartly and we need to bring in international components to do it. not only to drive down the price of the airplane but to share the burden of national security in cooperation now into the future for the next 50 years. the f-35 was designed to do that. we have it on a production line a moving assembly. we have our supply chain that's built to build 200 airplanes per year and do it efficiently. as the u.s. government estimate show we're going to recapitalize our fighter force at

approximately the same cost as prior generations of airplane. that is the value behind f-35 and we do it with a next host: has sequestration had an impact on the f-35 rollout? sequestration, for us is the topic du jour in washington dc. is broken like most people's in washington. i am not sure which way is up. for the f-35 program, what we are focused on his execution. we are focused on delivering our milestones and delivering on development to support the initial operating capabilities for the u.s. marine corps, air force and navy. we focus on things that we can control. that is reducing the price of the airplane. the last three contracts we

signed recently were well below the u.s. government estimate and the trend continues to deliver this airplane below the estimate for approximately the same cost as prior generations of airplane. focused.here we are it is the levering that capability to our young men and women who need it to continue to outpace potential adversaries out there today. host: speaking of sequestration, earlier this month, a defense analyst was asked about the f-35 and spending cuts. here is what he had to say. >> what is going to happen with that airplane is it is going to die a slow agonizing death. budget is going to start getting squeezed. the number of dollars in the f- .5 budget cannot be afforded

as that starts to get squeezed, the factory is going to be even slower. is going to become completely unaffordable. it will become even more of a disaster. host: steve o'bryan, care to --care toestion mark respond? guest: i can only talk about the facts. we have eight countries under contract. we have 235 airplanes under contract. that is more than the entire f- 22. we delivered 30 airplanes last year. we will deliver 36 this year. we are dropping the cost, a 55% reduction from the first year to the seventh year and we will continue to do that to forpitalize our fleets approximately the same cost as

last generation airplanes in accordance with the u.s. government estimate. icn f-35 that is accelerating. -- i see and f-35 that is accelerating. i see production ramping up and i see the cost dropping. host: our line for republicans, is retiredthe -- military from florida. go ahead. 8 pilot inwas a p-3 world war ii and i love lockheed. , i wentas 22 years old up in a 38 and said, here i am a 22-year-old and a hundred thousand dollar airplane. now, these things are unbelievable in the cost. my question was, why can't the marine version and the navy version be the same where they are both short takeoff and landing? attention to that clown that called for me. he is an idiot.

thank you for your service. i will hang up now. jack, thanks again for your call and for your service. hour the viewers might not know was the lightning one. the difference between the u.s. version -- the navy version and the marine, the navy version is built to operate off of catapults and wires with tail looks. the marine corps version has a band in the front of it and the engine uses a three bearing swivel nozzle. that allows it to do a very short takeoff and landing. in terms of short takeoff, this is less than 500 feet without the catapult. come back and the land in very small spots. both are built for different purposes and different basing

locations. they have unique attributes that operate for the two bank u.s. services -- two bank u.s. service -- two u.s. services. they are common where they need to be, and. things are in the cost -- the avionics and the repulsion system are common throughout the two variants. that commonality allows for repair at the same places of allows interchangeable parts that are common and allows us to drive down the supply chain and the cost. , there is a version made for international countries. operate a version. harriere other

operators out there that may use the f-35 as well. these are made for different basing locations but they maintain commonality where they need to to reduce the cost of ownership of your claim. host: the caller talked about and put the price tag then at about $100,000. ,he parenting cost of the f-35 estimates have climbed from $81 million to $161 million today. you have been saying over the last hour that rice will come down, where will it settle at her plane question mark -- proclaim? plane? caller: that is the airplane, the engines, all the systems and changes we have to do. we have reduced that price from the first year of production to the seventh year of production by 55%.

below signing contracts estimate. the u.s. government estimate shows that in 2018, the average price of the f-35 a, the largest variant, will be about $85 million which is approximately $75 million today. the key, we are signing contracts well below the estimate and we estimate that will continue for the foreseeable future. really, what we are getting is an f-35 for approximately the same price and cost as a prior generation of airplane with a huge leap in capability. host: steve o'bryan is the vice president of business developer and at lockheed martin. thank you for joining us this morning in arlington, virginia. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

tomorrow, we have more on the future of the f-35. -- 8:30 a.m.,em we talk with frank oliveri. before that, we talk with tad d ehaven. we finish washington journal tomorrow with senior contributor who talks about operations within the national security agency. that is all tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on the nsa and government surveillance, the director of national intelligence, james clapper says he will be declassifying three secret u.s. court opinions by the fisa court. gathered how the nsa tens of thousands of e-mails and other community asians every year. for more than three years. those communications of americans with no connection to terrorism.

court opinion shows how the nsa revealed the error to courts and changed how would gather the information. nsa says it inadvertently collected some of the information. the fisa court ordered the nsa to limit what it collects and how long it keeps that information. later today, we take you live to the mayoral debate in new york city for the democratic candidates. pm --e a preview at six: 6:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span two at 6:00, economic inequality with the good jobs nation coalition. that is on our companion that merck, c-span2. tonight on c-span possum encore presentation of first ladies. >> james garfield went to chicago to nominate someone else for president. lucretia garfield had no expectation that over the next five months, somewhere between

-- thousands of people would show up in her home. when these people started to show up, that many people unexpected, uninvited, started a lot of damage. we know that lucretia garfield was a gracious host. she would often examine the front hallway and offer them what she called standing refreshment which meant she was very gracious, she offered them a cold glass of water or lemonade, but conspicuously no chair to sit in. >> the encore presentation of our original series first ladies continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. ofearlier today, the ceo said, mohammed el-erian the u.s. would continue to experience slow economic growth and high on implement if the political system is not start dealing with issues like tax

reform, infrastructure investment, education and long- term debt. his company operates the largest bond fund in the world. he spoke on a panel that chairmanformer nddic sheila bair and john taylor. this event was held earlier today at the national press club. >> good morning and welcome to the national press club. i am jennifer schonberger of the national journalists. the national press club is an organization for journalists. you can learn more about the club online. the than four years after recession officially ended, the economy is stuck in second gear. gdp has grown less than two percent for three consecutive quarters. that is below the average growth rate of two percent for the duration of this recovery and well below the three percent rate economy has historically

grown. incomes are stagnant and unemployment is high at 7.4%. workers dropped out of the workforce the course they are -- because they are discouraged. .he housing market is improving how much longer will our economy remain stuck in the mud. nearly five years into the financial crisis, what is the state of the banking system now? what can be done to pull america out of this tepid. -- tepid keyword of growth? we are joined by incredible experts on the panel. mohammed el-erian, ceo of pacific investment management company. toila bair, senior adviser charitable trusts. john taylor, professor of economics at stanford university

and senior fellow at the hoover institution. he is well-known for the taylor rule, a monetary policy principle that offers guidance on how to tinker with interest rates to control inflation. taylor served as undersecretary of the treasury during the george w. bush administration and was part of the council of economic advisers. specimen so much for being here today. special thanks to mohammed el- erian and mr. taylor for flying from california. i went to kick off the panel with you. coined the term, the new normal in 2009. your outlook for the economy has been dead on. how much longer is this economy going to remain in the new normal? me take you back to 2009 when the new normal concept came out. the idea was to signal that it would not be your traditional cyclical recovery. unless the mindset in washington

changed, and there was a better understanding of the underlying dynamics, we risked getting stuck. in a keyword of unusually sluggish clerk -- growth, high on implement, that is when it materialized. concept of the economy stuck in second gear. let me push this analogy. it is not just stuck in second gear, it is being driven on a foggy road. there is some good news. we are doing better than others. europe was in reverse and just went to neutral. japan has been neutral for a long time and just jumps to first gear. we are doing better than others. other good news is there is no reason why this economy needs to be driven in second year. this car is capable of being driven in third, fourth, or 50 or. -- fifth dear. -- fifth gear.

the question is why question mark why? transmission in order to shift gears, you need to press the clutch. you can try doing it otherwise, but you risk -- the minute you start pressing the clutch, you go from what is technologically possible to what is politically feasible. hasn't been that it is not technologically possible, it is just politically not feasible. a couple of things have happened. one is the attempt to shift gets frustrated. you need only look at some pretty good initiatives that have gone to congress and have been almost dead on arrival. the second is you have another driver, the fed, which has been trying to force change but haven't been able to do it using

proper instruments. that is why the benefits have been less than what were or thed and the cost collateral damage has become a concern. >> where do we go from here? >> let me tell you what should happen. make theortant to difference between that and what is likely to happen. what should happen is you should have a political coming together on the four things this economy needs. the problem is that the political debate is very -- right now. we need structural reforms. we need more balanced aggregate demand. we need to deal with debt overhang and persistent behavior that underlines this economy. we need some really good micro elements that have to do with the education system and labor

retraining. >> until we get that -- >> until we get there, we are stuck at two percent. the longer we are stuck at two percent, the more potential are coming down. the problems get structurally embedded. look at long-term unemployed and youth unemployment. >> mr. taylor, the economy has changed since the recession quick. -- the recession. many workers don't possess the necessary skills to meet the available job openings. are we looking at permanently higher unemployment for some time to come? >> i don't think we are. the problem with the on implement rate remaining high with drug growth hardly keeping up -- job growth hardly keeping up with the population could change. it depends very much on policy. to me, it is not so much second

gear although i like the analogy. it is more, this big heavyweight on the back of the car that is slowing the economy down. i think a lot of it is the policy. you could look back at previous expansions. deep recession in the early 80 , growth was five percent per year. it has been 2.2% in this recovery. it is dramatic. i think you could learn from history about what to do. >> you don't think we are going to remain in permanently higher unemployment? >> there are certainly eight injured we will. i think it largely depends on policy. one of the things that could lead us in this direction is complacency. -- way back when we

thought unemployment normal was four percent, there was a time where the council of economic said because of demographics, let's call it 4.9. it was viewed as incredibly pessimistic to say 4.9. now, we are talking about maybe 6.5. taking this discouraging performance and making it what we expect for the future. there is a danger to go in that direction. >> sheila -- >> i agree with that. we can do better. there is political dysfunction in washington. politicians say, this is the best we can do. agree. i would

think getting rid of the loopholes, expenditures, ,ringing the -- rate down identifying infrastructure spending, retraining the workforce, there are things we need to do. we need to make our country more competitive so that other people want to buy. >> is it safe to say that politics is the greatest in an event -- impediment to growth? will the economy be held back? >> yes. that is the biggest obstacle. the second one is the mindset. believing that finance was the next level of capitalism. you betterw, agriculture, manufacturing, services, and if you are really lucky, you can do finance.

the description of my industry changed from financial services which is this notion that you served the real economy, to finance with the notion that your standalone. we need to realize that right now we don't have a financial service industry that supports the economy enough. there is a mindset issue. i agree with john and sheila that we have to go back to genuine drivers of growth instead of this love affair that we have with leverage and debt entitlement because that will put us into another crisis. >> coming back to the present situation, income inequality is growing. lower income households are struggling. the one percent is doing just fine. we haven't seen protests in the streets like in europe, but what is the risk of the social fabric of america beginning to fray? >> it is fraying. it is fraying because we started out with social inequality and

now it is getting worse. it is getting worse because of the policies we are pursuing to try and restart our economy. if the fed is the only policy making entity in play today in washington, not by choice but by necessity, the fed can only act using indirect policies. it cannot invest in infrastructure. it cannot change the tax code. it has to convince people to do things. how does it convince people? the idea is very simple. you make asset markets unofficially high. the wealth effect, people feel richer. more companies will invest who owns financial assets? . you have this irony in using imperfect policy by necessity,

you make income inequality worse. that. bair, do you believe this is contributing to the widening of income inequality? >> i do. it is not trickle down. it has resulted in financial asset inflation. people who own financial assets who are the wealthier folks. there are not quality jobs. the vast majority of people in this country -- they don't own financial assets that have been inflated through this aggressive monetary policy. i think they wanted to create jobs but it is not happening. >> what is the biggest risks to the economy right now? >> i think the unsustainability of the course that we are on. we have tepid growth and we are too much trying to go back to the past.

sustainable.t you need real wage growth. you need production of real goods and services that others will want to buy. fueling growth through increasing levels of leverage causes collapse. i am afraid with cheap interest rates, that is what it is designed to do. it is not sustainable. i am in the process of writing a book for young adults on the crisis and i have been interviewing families who were impacted. of people outt there still on the edge. they are just finally making it back, but they are making maybe two thirds of what they used to make. fed, there is the that the fed is going to pull back on bond purchases. we have seen bond rates rise. how much higher do you see bond yields and interest rates

rising? will it choke off growth even more? >> >> bond yields are rising because financial markets behave differently. economists like to look at the journey and i am very rational that the journey can take one step here, one step here. financial markets look at terminal values, the destination. what is themselves, destination look like and can i get their first? if you get to the right place first, that is where you want to be. the minute the fed starts , you sawbout tapering interest rates take off. we have now a significant tapering as early as september. that has an impact. you have seen the housing market we can. you are seeing the effect of

that. the fed is trying to play defense. the first attempt to play defense was to talk back that pull back the tapering. the second attempt was to use its second instrument to try to compensate for the effect of the first. the second instrument is experimental forward guidance. would you see now is the fed attempting to convince people to do things by using aggressive forward guidance in order to limit the impact of high interest rates. the one thing to remember, and this is really important, is that we are in a. where the -- a period where the fed is using experimental policies that have not been tested. it is like a doctor that gives you a medication because he or she has to do so that hasn't been clinically tested. when that medication doesn't work well, i will give you a bit more of it.

not any better, i give you a bit more. that is why this notion is so important. >> let's talk about the fed aw's unconventional policy. have we created new sources of financial instability? >> i would say the caveat is it is harder to get out. on aneed to get out gradual, slow basis. at the end of 2000 well, some studies show there were 90% of new issuance back to securities. would say tapering would be on a very long time frame. hopefully, that would become mind -- be combi ned with new fiscal policy.

it will not give us some short- term sugar high, but long-term economic benefit. i think that could work. -- ahave been in too long way too long, but they need to get out very slow. >> professor taylor, you coined the taylor rule. what is your take on the fed's policy? what course of action would you take to this? >> i think what you're seeing now, what sheila and mohammed are concerned about, is exactly what those of us who are very wary about quantitative -- worry about. it was clear that something like this would happen. this is exactly why so many people were concerned. winners toprize former chairs of fed, very concerned with this whole action.

at this point, you try to get out of it. it reminds me of what happened in the 70s. people realized that this terrible policy of the fed wasn't working. it took a long time to get out of it. i think the number one thing should be getting back to normal policy. we had a good monetary policy that has worked very well. we have gotten off of that. it is very unpredictable. who knows what is going to happen next? markets are hard to predict. if mohammed can predict them, you can see what it is like. lay out a strategy, get back to normal policy. if not now, when? it is not going to be easy. economy is what this really needs. it needs predict ability about policy. go around the world and talk to central bankers. they crave the day that they can go back to normal policy. >> you advocate a tapering right

now? in september? >> i would get started with it. they have laid out a plan already. they have to worry about how they communicate this. i think the strategies are not laid out as carefully as they could be. i think a strategy, we have recommended strategies to make sure the tapering is -- i say tapering means stopping purchases before you start to raise rates. i think you have to drive down the balance sheet. that is going to take some time. >> right now, we are on course for lifting interest rates in 2015? would you advocate that or something sooner? right now there is inconsistency in the policy statements. 2015,ea of a zero rate in even if the economy is sluggish likely think it will be, it is

probably going to look too low when 2015 comes around. that inconsistency is in the markets. promise ofthere is a zero rates but when the time comes, it looks like we go to be higher. >> professor taylor, your name has been brought up in certain seconds -- circles as a potential candidate for the chairman of the federal reserve. ben bernanke will be stepping down in january. any interest in the job? [laughter] >> absolutely not. [laughter] one thing that is great about our country is we have this civil society where people can be on the outside and comment and criticize. i am customary -- i am very comfortable with that role. [laughter] >> what happens when the fed does begin to pull back?

how will that impact the economy is to mark will it help or hurt? >> we do need to be back to normal. it is going to take a long time. john, i am willing to wager that unless the other things happen, unless the political system gets the drag, the headwinds that we face on the rest of the world -- rates will be incredibly low. i will take you one step further. in the short term, what you're , the fed purchases have inserted a wedge. between sluggish fundamentals and asset finance. the reason we worry is we worry that the behavior is inconsistent. people are taking too much risk.

sheila was worried about the mismatch that banks were taking. the fed cannot and troll -- control long end of the curve. you will see one of two things. either the fed's policy will work, low probability but it may work. it doesn't need to press the accelerator so much. to echo what john said, this is not about hitting the brake. this is about taking the foot off the accelerator. alternatively, asset prices will come down to reflect fundamentals. when that happens, that becomes a drag on the economy. that is what we worry about most. >> can i make a comment about the impact?

if you think about --, it was first announced december of last year. was10 year treasury rate 1.7 at both of those times. it got to 1.9 this week. i'm sorry, 2.9 this week. from no positive effect this quantitative easing. it is just not there. is aw many people think it boost to the stock market, but if you look at fundamentals, you can explain a lot of what is happening. i think people need to realize, we don't know the impact of these policies. it is experimental. i see them as negative. to me, it is a reason to get out. i am not the only one. i can give you a long list of experts as well. they worry this is a drag.

there is going to be a negative as you get out of it. ultimately, i think it will be better. >> mohammed, to your point on 2016,st rates at zero in obviously the fed has said that when it tapers purchases, it will keep zero interest rates in place until the labor market improves. our zero richest rates -- interest rates a trap? we are trying to unwind these policies. japan has been the poster child for that. they have been pursuing quantitative easing for 20 years. >> at the risk of being controversial, first of all they are in a liquidity trap. are they in a trap in the sense that we are staying there

underestimating the impact? you have to tell me what the counterfactual is. other policies get their act together, then they are trapped. discouraging as they are allowing to the comp -- politicians to become complacent, then they are trapped. if the alternative is absolutely no support, then they are not trapped. back to thiso go notion of what is happening underneath. i have a 10-year-old daughter so i am particularly sensitive to the details of unemployment. i look at two things. olds, an- 16-19-year-

limit is 25%. you remain, if unemployed for long you become unemployable. there is a continuous entry of people into the labor force who are very much like you. that number, the longer it persists -- anything that can be done to support the economy and make sure we have the skill set will be better. the second number is the unemployment rate depending on what education you get. the average 7.4%, it is not a good average but it is the one everyone sees, if you have a if you haven't finished high school, it is 11%. >> we are going to talk about how to get out of this. before that, i want to talk about the u.s. financial system.

september will mark the five- year anniversary of the five- year anniversary and the collapse of lehman brothers. what is the state of the banking system now? >> i think it is certainly safer than it was. it is not as safe as it should be. many of the rules that we really need to have have not been finalized yet. bankse got more capital primarily through the stress testing process. i worry about sustainability over time. they have raised the amount of capital that financial institutions can use to fund risk-taking. those rules have not been finalized yet. they were voted on some time ago .

it is a work in progress. standards which was a key component for dr. frank, they were proposed over a year ago. again, there is a lot of pushback. we don't know what will happen. finalized, and different people have different views, nonetheless, it is important from a legal standpoint to get these roles done. i have to say, there has not been enough progress. those focused on march financial institutions and instabilities may create, those are barely even started. >> you but up our regulators. -- brought up our regulators.

you said you have been in favor of strengthening them and you are -- this is a good idea? will banks have sufficient padding with new rules in place? , wehe group that i chair have abdicated a minimum eight percent. they are at six percent now for insured banks. only five percent for holding companies. that would include both the insured bank and some nonbank affiliates. i think the minimum should be eight. six percent is an improvement. it seems like they should -- you shouldn't have insured banks subsidize greater leverage. i hope the fed will change that. i think those were tremendously positive. i think estimates were another

90 billion of capital. we hope to strengthen those rules further. this is important. capital, more than anything, gives you a stable financial system. we don't know what the next thing maybe. if you have capital, there will be annexed her cushion. we have learned that these hybrid instruments don't have absorbing capacity. it has to change. the focus is now on tangible, neck woody. some progress, -- tangible common equity. progress, -- [inaudible] >> when i became chairman of the , there was a rule that

would have let the largest institutions take on leverage. studies show that they could take on more leverage and we fought it off. we heard from the banks, we don't need more capital, these good times would last forever. we know how to manage our risk. what they said in good time. in bad times, you can't raise our capital, it will hurt our ability to lend. it is never a good time. thing, the way isy risk weight now securities and derivatives. with a leverage ratio, you're the capitolreducing advantage of securities and derivatives over lending. capitale new requirements do go through, would it cause the nations largest banks to break up and become smaller? >> i don't know.

there is probably a lot of hyperbole. they may need to get smaller. they may sell assets to do this. some people say that is terrible. i don't think it is a bad thing. >> do you think that downsizing will unlock economic growth? >> it is complexity more than size. suddenly, the larger you are, the more difficult it is to manage. the leverage ratio will hit securities and derivatives harder than lending. i don't think that is a bad thing at all. if the fed continues with higher leverage outside, then it may move into the holding company where there is less regulatory scrutiny. i don't think that is a good result. there are plenty of studies that show better capitalized banks do

more lending. they have the capital to absorb the loss. that is why you saw smaller banks doing more lending during the crisis than the big ones. those are the ones that were suffering the market loss. , bad loansnly said give us the crisis. there were a lot of bad mortgage loans out there. what accelerated it were the structured products, the synthetic or evidence -- derivatives, the sudden losses on those. that is what got us into trouble. as underlying loan losses, substantial as they were, they accumulate over time. i think the system could have observed that. lendingbanks to do more is a very positive thing. >> officer taylor, weigh in on this.

what is your sense of doubling capital requirements? how will it impact the flow of credit in the economy? >> it is not really a doubling. some are higher already. wells fargo, the numbers are probably above. we will have to see. i think it is correct to look at this leverage ratio rather than the risk weight at some extent. ratiosbers show leverage from three percent to six percent on average. i don't think a percent is going to be a problem. why are you doing this is the question. partly it is to reduce the risk in the system. panic,f there is another then we have these from time to that is a dangerous situation. time, you don't want the government to get into another mode of having to bail out. thinking more capital, i

subordinate debt can help as well. you reduce that risk. that would improve the financial system. >> a couple of senators have produced -- proposed the idea of -- good idea? idea will gain a lot of traction. i think other than that, i welcome it because it puts directional pressure on regulators saying, we don't think you are doing enough. i like the fact -- to have a 15% leverage ratio higher than the minimum. i think that is positive. i have argued in my book that i don't like insured deposits. i would like to see all of that moved out.

as long as there are strict firewalls. make the market fund it. it will be more expensive if the market has to fund it. i think that will create activities. that is what i have argued, a complete split by statute. i think it is tremendous that the bill has been introduced. it goes to the right place. it puts more pressure on regulators to do more. >> let's talk about what needs to be done to pull america out of this tepid. period of growth. you spoke to it a little bit earlier but if you could delve in more. >> we need to do two things. we need to boost growth to its potential. secondly, we have to enhance potential growth.

step is going back to what i spoke about. byual growth is held back first a lack of structural reform. everything from infrastructure to facilitating the labor market. labor mobility is going down. giving clarity to companies of what the fiscal regime is going to look like. that is important if you are planning to invest. that is one reason why companies prefer to hold cash. you have a whole set of structural reforms that can enhance productivity, that can contribute to money being put back into the system. i believe that you can safely expand aggregate demand.

fiscal, focused on infrastructure. i think the return investment in this country is high. live likewho didn't john and i did through the market crisis, a debt overhang discourages new capital from coming in. if you don't know, think of detroit. would you lend to detroit today? you wouldn't. you would want to find out what happens to others who lend to detroit. there is the longer-term agenda. that has to do with potential growth. that speaks to education. it speaks to some micro things that we should be doing. one of the problems of the fed being the center of attention is it everts discussion away from other things. there is this whole set of other

things that are more important for us and for the next , that this whole narrative have shifted away from. >> as chief of the white house global council of economics, what types of new projects are you working on? >> you have promoted me. [laughter] i am grateful to be chair of the council on global development. the notion is very simple. securing u.s. national andrity and economic future living in a global neighborhood that is more prosperous. -- you nornumerous ms. advantages. numerousso --

advantages. eradicate -- the idea is to contribute and bring in outside perception. we are a council made of people from very different backgrounds and experience. it is a wonderful collection of people. we have gotten to know each other over the last few months and we are working on a few major initiatives. our hope is to supplement what is going on within government. enhancing america's contribution. >> how do we rejuvenate the american economy? strongerk we need political leadership. our elected officials -- we don't have a fiscal policy.

the lack of attention on job creation has been astonishing to me. as i have said before, i think there are different ways to approach it. i am big on tax reform. i think adding rid of these unexpected expenditures where the government is giving you a tax benefit versus what made more economic sense, are very harmful. make us more competitive internationally. i think we should do major infrastructure spending during national infrastructure bank. it should fund self-sustaining projects. i think we should do it. we should be all in. that is a better role for government than subsidizing housing. i would love to see that. a longcans have tradition of supporting infrastructure spending in the past. we need to get smarter about education policies.

we need to retrain the workforce with greater technical expertise. we need immigration reform done right. we also need to make sure there are jobs. we need to make sure there are jobs there for them. those would be on the top of my list. to want excuses for not doing anything. point, i'mearlier afraid they will say the government can't do anything. they don't try any more. >> mexico had this problem. i don't know if you saw this article last week. their economy and country very much drifted off. now, they have new leadership in place and they essentially made a pact to compromise. is that something we need to do? >> when i worked in the senate

in the 80s, you're a member of at stuff. 86 tax reform. cleaning up the tax code of as many expenditures as you can. those were all cumbre misers. republicans and democrats worked together. it worked. it gave us many years of prosperity. it would be lovely to see that again. in our is more people markets and political system. your focusing on your next election cycle. i don't get that. why do you want to be in public service if you are not leaving? you have a responsibility to govern. that is what taxpayers are paying you for. professor taylor, how do we

jumpstart the economy? >> the paperback version of my book on this is just out. called first principles. when you look at our recent history, you see the kind of things that make the economy strong and weak. i pointed to five things. the more we pay attention to the rule of law, predict ability of policy, emphasis on market incentives and the role of government judged on cost- benefit analysis. based on the philosophy, i think it is pretty clear. on fiscal policy, there is still unpredictability. there are two budgets out there. they are so far different from each other. that has to be settled. we didn't mention entitlement reform. don't forget that. that is where the big debt issue in the future is coming.

some certainty about that would provide predict ability. on the tax code, i agree 100%. it is a no-brainer that we need to get corporate rates down and reform the personal system. tax reform has got tied into the notion that you need more revenues. classic tax reform, it worked with president kennedy and reagan. you reduce rates and expand the base. it creates economic growth. we got away from that. one of the things that i think we need to face up to is we have had a lot of regulatory increases in the last few years. has a huge number of regulations. any rules haven't been written yet. that is a drag. the new healthcare law, there is a lot of uncertainty about that. that affects behavior.

that is a drag on the economy. we have to think about how we deal with that. compromising isn't easy. there are different philosophies about what will work and what won't. that is why discussions like this are helpful. it is sometimes doing the right thing, not just come from rising. -- compromising for compromising sake. >> i agree on entitlement reform. the regulatory uncertainty is very important. i get frustrated with all the pushback on getting the rules finalized because our system has proven to be very resilient. the financial service industries interest is to get this done. >> let's talk about the president's proposal for tax reform.

the president is proposing to cut the corporate tax rate to 28% from 35% and a limited loopholes. it has been fuzzy on the treatment of overseas profits. the president has said in exchange for simple tax systems, he would like to use one-time funds to repair roads and bridges and improve community college system. >> there is an example of a tax reform that meets a test john taylor put up. lower the rate, expand the base. it is better for growth and provides an opportunity to invest in something that we need that private public partnership can't do easily. there are certain things in infrastructure we need where you

need the public sector to take the lead. to the go back president's job plan last year. most people would agree too many components of this. it didn't go anywhere. it speaks to what john said which is, the minute a proposal is put forward, the political system encourages not consensusbuilding and modification to make it a better proposal, but the political system encourages that it should die. that is a problem. theas not to do only with cycle, but the reality of something that has been written about a lot. if your morning for reelection, you are most likely threatened by the extreme of your party. that impacts behavior when you're in the government. are is why good proposals