how do you see that issue unfolding as we head into the fall? >> hillary clinton is giving a speech on the nsa on september 10 that i think will be fascinating to watch. i do think this issue does have at least the potential now of becoming that kind of dividing line within the democratic party and potentially something that could in fact shape whatever primary race there is in 2016. >> hillary clinton is giving a >> interesting she will be taking on that issue right now. what do you make on that? >> i have to differ somewhat on that. it is hard to see this issue becoming a really cutting edge issue for a couple of reasons. the vast majority of americans do want surveillance to take place to prevent us against terrorists. they do want this balance. also, it is hard to see even if i know intellectually that the

nsa might be knowing what phone calls or numbers go in and out of my phone and intercepting some of my e-mails and that sort of thing, it is hard for us to see how it impacts our lives. it is different from the economy and jobs and obamacare. it may be more of an intellectual exercise that does not really rise to the top of the political debates. >> we will watch to see how all of the issues unfold. charles babington, karen tumulty, thank you. i appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on monday1, a conversation

with former vice president dick cheney and his daughter, who announced her run as republican senate. 7:30 p.m. eastern. , tuesday morning, outgoing homeland security secretary janet napolitano will get remarks at the national press club. shecertain -- cease -- served since 2009. >> republican senator tom coburn held a town hall friday. this is an hour and 10 minutes. on monday

>> you good? good afternoon. we are on time. welcome. it is good to visit with you. i will be a little slow this evening. this is the fifth one i have done today. bear with me. it drag you down more than you think. i will not spend a lot of time talking, but i do want to hear from you. there are a lot of concerns in our country, not any of them on solvable -- unsolvable, but they're big and problematic.

if i were to assess where we are today, and it's a constitutional republic we have is at risk for the very reasons our forefathers talked about. the abandonment of constitutional principles, especially the enumerated powers. it has treated situations where we find ourselves leaving a legacy to our children i certainly cannot be proud of and i know most of you will not be proud of. our unfunded liabilities right now are $126 trillion when you add them all up. that includes the $17 trillion plus the rest of the unfunded. that includes the $17 trillion that we owed plus the rest of the unfunded liabilities. essentially, the game is up. the problem is we do not have any visionary leadership in our country in either party that will stand up and talk about what the real principles and problems are. we have undermined self- reliance in the name of being charitable. we have abdicated personal responsibility in the name of being fair. we are following in the footsteps of whatever historian has noticed about every constitutional republic -- they do not last. the reason they do not laos is

because we concentrate power in the central government and give away freedom and create fiscal policies that undermine the economy that supports the growth and vibrancy of our country. i think they're all solvable. the questions i asked publicly and privately is all of these big problems, why are we not addressing them in the congress? i hear from oklahomans about the fact that we need to work together. i have an observation on that. we're going to have an $800 billion deficit this year. congress approved that. i would say we're working together to well. [laughter]

we have agencies rife with fraud that congress has agreed not to do anything about. i think we're working too well together. our biggest problem, in my estimation, is not our country and not our people. it is the elitism that comes from career politics that dominates our congress and our country. [applause] a was asked today and asked the law -- i was asked today and asked a lot about what we can do about it. throw them out does not work unless you replace them with andple that are different.

you a as i is 70% of the senate essentially has never had a job out of career politics. they are wonderful people. i get along great with dick durbin.

i like him as an individual. our philosophies are entirely different. he means well, as well as many of the of the people that promote what i would consider policies that will undermine our future liberties. the thing is they lack a frame of reference from experience in the world like our farmers sitting over here that nose, like our insurance agents, our policemen that are here to have done something with their lives outside of elective politics. it does not do any good to throw them all out. i have been convinced, in the last week or so i have read a book called "the liberty of amendments." i used to have a great fear of a constitutional convention. i have a great fear now of not having one. 3/4 of the states would have to approve anything approved through that. i do not think there is a lot of danger from our republic in us taking back control from washington and honoring the 10th amendment, enhancing federalism, and recreating a sense of personal responsibility and accountability at the individual, city, and state level. i had a fire chief get upset with me today because i do not see any role in the federal government for us to be buying fire engines for states and

cities. the danger with that is you become addicted to the largess of the federal government who says they're giving you something but are actually stealing it from your children and grandchildren. i do not think we have problems we cannot solve. we lack leaders thinking long term and understand what makes our country great or has made our country great is the very fact we enhance personal responsibility, hard work. we do not condition dependency more so than what is needed, rather than to create an environment where you do not have to help yourself. i am thankful each of you are here today. we have had a big turnout at town hall meetings. we're talking to the choir. he would not be here. he would not be here unless you

were concerned and had an interest in it. we're going to do questions. i will try to answer to the best of my ability. we have one rule. we do not let go of the microphone. i learned a long time ago if i let go of the microphone, it may be 20 minutes before i get it back. i will go as long as you want to be here. almost as long as you want to be here, until my blood sugar get so low that i will go eat some ribs. that is not a commercial. that is just my favorite place to eat in town. who wants to ask the first question? we have a microphone right here. >> i appreciate your being here. if not for you, we would not have any senator at a town hall meeting. you touched on the topic of wanted to hear about, personal responsibility. there is no accountability in the government, ok?

you, with all of these great research papers on fraud and waste. nothing happens. the constitution does not seem to matter anymore. obama, i cannot work with him so i will do it this way. nobody seems to object. the only people punished where the -- >> i am going to make you get to a question. >> my point is let's not talk three years to the next president. what are we going to do in the next 12 months to correct the course? are you going to go on his show and talk about his book? >> right now, i am out of favor with the lavigne show because i

do not think it is a smart strategy to shut down the government to defend obamacare. our economy is so precarious right now. shutting down the government will not stop obamacare. it will continue to roll out. we are limited. a couple of points i would make. republicans control the house of representatives. that is 1/6 of the total government. we do not control the presidency, we do not control the senate. the second point i would make is when they do those things, as a u.s. senator, i do not have standing in a court of law i have letters out right now chastising a justice department asking why they have not cooperated with the government accountability office. by law, they have to cooperate. except this administration is refusing to do so on multiple events across multiple agencies. i think a lot of ways, they are

loyalists in terms of their behavior to congress. the leadership in the congress, especially the senate, is designed for short-term political gain, not designed to solve the problems of our country. the reason i can say that is the numbers i just gave you in terms of our unfunded liabilities, you would think we would be addressing those issues. $100 billion a year in fraud in medicare. i have three bills that i cannot get considered.

i know something about health care and insurance and medicare. the point is my desire is great. my ability to continue to push boulders up is limited because there are not the votes there to help me. we have great people. i love mike lee. we differ on the shut down strategy. he is a great patriot. we have 20 or 30 guys like him. but that is not enough. until you change to is there, you are not going to change. i do not have a great answer for you. i will keep fighting and oversighting, keep putting out reports. i have offered more amendments on the floor than anyone else combined. i held more bills and appointments than almost anybody else there. my first rule book is the u.s. constitution. it is not the republican party. it is the u.s. constitution. we will keep fighting. but remember, the press is not balanced in this country. there is a bias, a hard left bias in the press.

you put it out there and makes common sense, but they will not cover. next one. >> thank you for being here today. last week, it was the first time i have been to one of these. this is the first time i have been to hear you. i am proud of what you do for our state and how you represent us. i just wish there were 100 like you. i have been around a few years. i am reminded of when strom thurmond said 100 here and there and soon we're talking about real money. i wish we were still talking about $1 million here and there. now we're talking about billions. we're getting desensitized about money, where it goes and what not. we have a debt limit coming up next month, actually in october.

i am reminded that we pay our bills. i'm reminded that we pay our bills. this is not money to spend. is to pay what we already spent. that is the whole point. when are you going to quit spending so we do not have to keep raising the debt limit to pay our bills? that is the problem as i see it. that is just a basic. >> so your question is? >> why do we keep letting them spend our money? i thought congress was the one that allocated money. how did they get this billions of dollars to give away? we have got serious problems in this country that this money could go to. >> the answer, first of all the federal budget under the johnson administration was unified. social security access monies started in our deficit five years ago.

there is mandatory spending that congress then appropriates. it is the vast majority of spending. that is why shutting down the government over obamacare will not top obamacare. 85% of it is mandatory spending. there is some good news on that front. over the last two years, we have spent about $160 billion less on discretionary programs than we did the two years before. that is the first time that happened to since the korean war. we did it once in 1996 when we did a package when i went into congress, which ultimately resulted in us balancing the budget. the extrapolation of that $64 billion came out to be $130 billion a year. it was a big deal. this is a bad way of doing it, a sequester, but it is a whole lot better than not doing it at all.

it is like when your wife asks you to pick the weeds. you take the lawnmower and mow everything. that is what we are doing. if you go on our website, we put out a whole lot of sequester letters to the administration. what we were hearing from the president, how bad sequester is going to be, how -- all this,

what was going to be 17 days of furloughs is now down to four on only 50% of agencies. necessity is the mother of invention. there is still, after the sequester, $250 billion appear fraught -- of pure fraud, waste, and deprecation in the federal government every year. and we have nothing -- done nothing about that. the question is, where's is the leadership to do that? what i'm telling you, it is not there. i do not see it. it is not in my party and not in the other party. certainly not the president -- he thinks we need to spend more money, not less. a big portion of that social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, all mandatory spending, unless we reform those programs they are going to continue to grow, and massively. but i will show the 30-year projections of spending. and the 30-year projections of revenue. it is totally unsustainable. we are at $17 trillion of debt. in 10 years, we will be at $30 trillion.

that is a great sidebar, whether we will get there. whether the international community will continue to loan us money. whether the federal reserve will continue to print money at interest rates. if we were at historical interest rates today for what we borrowed in the last 20-30 years, we would have another $1 trillion of deficit in interest costs. historic is 5.89%, and we are paying 1.35% now. instead of $233 billion in interest cost a year, we would have $1 trillion in interest costs. that is a $1 trillion you are not going to pay. your kids are going to pay. how they are going to pay it is through a markedly decreased standard of living. the inability to purchase a home, inability to send kids to college. that is what is going to happen. and we need to change it. that is why i said that i am afraid not to have a constitutional convention. i do not think we have time to waste. i think mark 11 has done a terrific -- levin has done a terrific job.

he is pretty harsh sometimes, but we have real problems and they need real solutions. nobody else is offering anything that comes close to it. >> welcome home, senator coburn. >> thank you. >> are you aware the bureau of land management office in salsa is reposing to consolidate it with oklahoma city at a cost to taxpayers of $2.5 million, and it will take 20 years to reach recoup those moving cost us? >> no, i am not. i would love to have the details on it. if you will either give that to connie or one of my staff, the details. do you recognize we spend $5 billion a year maintaining buildings the federal government owns that are empty? and that rather than moving into buildings and buying them, now the agencies lease them. why is that? because of the stupid accounting rule that says if you buy a building you have to expense it in the year you bought it. anyone here who has ever bought

a building knows that you do not write off the whole building the first year you buy it. the government will not let you write off the building in the first year you buy it. there is no way that the federal government cannot save tremendous amounts of money not owning their own buildings and getting rid of the excess property. i have been trying to do that for five years. i got a bill that taxed -- attached real property reform to the postal reform bill. i have an agreement with tom carper. we are not taking it out. we will reform real property, the way it is handled by the federal government, and save a ton of money. >> i believe john locke said that the purpose of government is to protect private property. when i look at what is going on now, the irs is collecting our financial data, ready soon you will be collecting all our healthcare data. they are collecting our e-mail, all our web access.

they will be using our kids to collect family data that is very personal. plus, we do not get a salary until the government takes their percentage. freddie and fannie hold liens on all our homes and 401(k) or ira. a 10% penalty or wait forever. so my question is -- >> 65 is not forever. [laughter] >> do not put me in that group yet. >> ok, almost forever. anyway, what kind of republican party, and you as a senator or group of senators, can do to restore our privacy and stop the

progressive tax code to steal the rest of our property? [applause] >> let me have a philosophical point first. we had an election in 2012. the republicans did not do so well, did they? my observation is everyone in the world knows what we are against, but nobody knows what we are for. when all they hear about is what we are against, they quit listening. the first thing we need to be is talking about a positive vision of how we restore our country, and what it means to you. what does it actually mean if we

restore? what does it mean to your kids? what does it mean as far as personal liberty and private property? you forgot to mention that all these enrollers for obama care will look at every bit of your tax staff and every bit of your medical stuff. these are people who have not had the background screen, have not been looked at. you are just going to trust the average person on the street with some of the most personal information you have. if, in fact, you want to enroll. if you do not enroll, we will find you.

-- we will fine you with a, quote, tax, our supreme court justice manipulated the words on. i think the first thing we have to do is talk about success. that means something different to each of us. whether it means i'm a great poet or i have built a business or i am a physician or a great carpenter or policeman. we need to re-enhance what it means to be successful. in contrast with what it means to be dependent. i have been working on this for six months. my staff, you have a great staff in washington. they are not careerists. most of them are young, but they are very smart. the average age is probably 35 or 40. we have been researching all the government benefits, and right now if you are a family and you take advantage of every government program available you can receive almost $50,000 without taxes per year on the backs of us. on the backs of us. now, my faith says to help those that need help. that is not helping. ultimately, that is hurting. it is hurting everybody. so i would recommend, and i may have done this at a town hall

meeting before here. there is a book, i believe, every concerned citizen ought to read. it is called "the tragedy of american compassion." it is written by a guy by the name of marvin o'lasky. he outlines the history of how americans use to help people who need help. it was highly effective. in terms of turning people's lives around. if, in fact, they wanted help to continue. kind of like you would discipline your child, how you would change behavior. so i think we have a long ways to go in terms of doing that. all these programs are multiply well-intentioned, but administered in such a way and run in such a way that they totally undermine self-reliance. we need to change that. it is a big deal when it comes to the money that our kids are going to have to pay in regards to those programs. who is next?

>> thank you. i want to thank you, and want you to know i am proud of you. i am proud of everyone divine -- everyone of our oklahoma representatives. when you talk, i understand what you are saying. and i really appreciate that. one is going to be real bloody. he said the other one is a state convention, which you just mentioned. is there any conversation going on among the states, and as an individual, what do we need to do to get that started? she made the point that it will take a while to get it done. >> first of all, that would not go through me. that would come through your state legislature. so what you need to do, you need to first of all, i would recommend you read that book and have a good understanding of the case so you can defend your position.

number two, you have to lobby your state legislators. they are the ones who have to make that decision. i do not agree with everything in his book, but i certainly agree with his attempt at a solution where we find neither the liberal party has the courage to stand up and do the things they are supposed to do. it is plain english in the constitution that fire control, the local community has nothing to do with the federal government. yet now we have become an entitled class because we have been given grants and 911, -- since 9/11, and everyone thinks you should have more money for your fire department. that is your responsibility, same as police. education -- we have spent $2.6 trillion since the education department was founded, and there is not one parameter and measure of education success that is better.

there are multiple that are worse. thomas jefferson's quote on education was this -- the father of our modern university system. he started the university of virginia. if the federal government is to be involved in education, you have to have an amendment to the constitution to be involved. one of the authors of the constitution specifically saying, the federal government has no business in education. as a matter of fact, we have made a mockery of it. we send all this money down, but then we make all these requirements and don't allow the local teachers who really love the children, the administrators and the parents to make the decisions that are best for their kids. and consequently, we are not succeeding. today, less than 12% of people taking the a.c.t. this year are qualified to go to college. that is a disaster for our country.

all right. you do not get to hold onto it very long. >> you know me. i have a couple of comments i have made. when we were talking about congress -- first of all, thank you for being here. of course, i wish you would come to tulsa. when our leadership will not allow congress to do some of the things and to hear some of the bills being heard, it is not so much the good men and women we have serving in congress as it is people like speaker boehner that will keep things from being heard. you have stated, you know, when we talk about obamacare. the supreme court did not give us the ruling that we wanted. in 2012, the elections did not give is that either.

when you ran last time, you stated that you were the most opposed to obamacare of anyone that could be. we reelected you to not only represent us, but to fight for us. because of that, we need men and women that have courage. we are not looking for excuses. heritage foundation, freedom works, all have found -- sound arguments on why obamacare should be defunded. so my question to you is, have used that than with any of these organizations -- have you sat down with any of these organizations to discuss this so your opinion would be changed? if not, would you do so? [applause] >> i have dinner every week with jim demint. i have met with markley and -- mike lee and marco rubio. the claim that because you won't

sign a letter are you for obama care iserly ridiculous. -- is utterly ridiculous. i don't degree that we need to get rid of obama care. i disagree with the tactic. you do not set a strategy at the -- out to try to accomplish something, ignoring a couple realistic facts. one, the only way you get rid of obamacare is with 67 votes in the u.s. senate. and two thirds of the house of representatives. unless obama is going to roll over and say, we made a mistake. i'm going to quit this. and i don't think that's going to happen. number two, i'm glad you raised the issue because it means you are involved in the future of our country. i believe that is admirable.

mike lee, marco rubio, ted cruz have the purest of intentions, but i believe they are dead wrong on tactics. if you will recall, we had a government shutdown in 1996. we lost 15 seats in an off year election when we should have won 15. you are missing my point. missing my point. that is not my excuse for doing it. what my reason for not embracing their strategy is, i am 100% convinced it will not work. let me explain why. let's say we carry out the full strategy and the government gets shut down. what do you think will happen to the weak-kneed, soft-spined members of the republican conference of which i am not one? i will not get reelected, we got to open this back up. that is exactly what will happen. we will have gone through all this exercise, not a combatant our goal, when in fact if we strategically look at it, a better place to do it is on the

debt ceiling. you do not impact the economy negatively in the short run. you do not alienate all the federal employees who are disrupted, a good portion of whom are your neighbors who work hard every day. you do not send a signal that you are way out here and do not have any idea about what real is the consequences -- realistic consequences are of what you are doing. finally, you recognize the career politicians who care more about being reelected than solving the country's problems. >> you cannot. >> it cannot. i understand that is what they have put out. i spent an hour and a half on the phone with senator lee. he is going to keep going the direction he is going. my career is eight times longer in a legislative body than his.

my judgment with people, having been a physician for 25 years, is pretty good. the fact is they have a failed strategy. i do not disagree with them getting rid of obamacare, but if you tell me i'm not a principal person because i will not sign a letter that they should do that, i disagree with you. i offered 300 amendments in committee on obamacare. i led the fight. i made bernie sanders read his bill i cannot be intellectually dishonest with you and tell me i -- agree with the strategy. it is setting up hope that we can do something that i am convinced we cannot. we will not accomplish. so it is great you are here and

great you are fighting for that. i just think it is it is setting up hope that we can do something i am convinced we can not. itwill not accomplish area is great you are here and you are fighting for it to be at -- for it. i just think it is misguided. you are not going to change my mind. i have had debates late into the night with marco rubio and mike lee on this. they are on one side. i am on the other. we are just not going to agree. i am not going to support it.

if it is there, i will be there cr's are a stupid way to run the federal government. [applause] >> this is the first time i have been to one of these things. it is great to be here. >> thank you for coming. >> i do not want to take away from obamacare, because i'm interested in it. >> i have heard about it all day. >> i am interested -- my granddaughter is going to a private christian school. i thought she was safe there, but they will get it there, and even homeschoolers. i know texas opted out. how can we opt out of it and not have it in our schools? >> let me give you background on common core. it is not emanate from anything the senate has done. is a program developed by the governors'association. if you do not want obama to be a part of it, all you have to do is change it. it is not anything that goes through me.

it is a state opt-in, opt-out deal. that is a state-run issue that you all need to deal with. i do not think the goals behind, common core are necessarily bad. i think probably the implementation is probably dangerous. but the point is that improving the educational standards of our children, the best way to do that is the parents and teachers and administrators back in charge and leave the federal government out of it. [applause] >> senator, thank you very much for being -- for the opportunity to represent oklahoma. really, all the years you have invested. we appreciate that. i am really concerned that maybe in a generation we are going to lose our second amendment right as americans, as oklahomans, to

defend ourselves, our homes. no pun intended, under the gun. what can we do? senator feinstein and senator reid, there is no common sense. the east coast, west coast, liberal politics, anyone who owns a gun is a criminal. what can we do? >> let me give you a little reassurance first. of all the 10 amendments, probably the one that is safest is the second amendment. i actually believe that. that is why i voted for debate on the gun bill. i want to have that debate all the time.

because you cannot stand up to the logic and consistency or the supreme court rulings that have instituted your right to defend yourself. i am not worried. the ban on "assault weapons" got the lowest number it has ever gotten. i feel really good. we have great lobbying organizations that are out to protect gun owners and the national rifle association. there is a lack of knowledge of a lot of people and a fear of guns. they associate violence with guns -- gun's fault rather than the individual. but they discount the number of tragedies that are averted because of the same thing. i would just want to reassure you, i think that is pretty secure. i believe with rights come responsibilities. i think gun owners ought to set

the example for being exemplary citizens by being totally responsible with guns, who they sell them to, how they sell them, how they handle them, how they keep them locked up, how they keep children from getting to them. how they keep -- teach young children about them. i think with every one of our rights comes real responsibilities. i think if we were to example that to the coasts on both ends, they might soon have an understanding of it. gun violence in this country over the last 20 years is 46% less than it has ever been. a decline of 46% over the last 20 years in this country in gun violence. the number of guns is about fivefold. so there are a lot of arguments to be made. the tragedies associated with violence are terrible. my wife and i had this debate. she is totally anti-gun, and i understand her situation.

but the one reason our founders wanted to protect our rights under the second amendment did not have anything to do with hunting. it has to do with defending our freedom. so maybe you could call us paranoid that we are worried about it. but if you look at the fiscal situation in the country and some of the lawlessness of the agencies of this administration in terms of ignoring what the law is, i think we have real reason to protect that right. what i see now in congress is a growing group that wants to protect that right rather than a lessening group. i would tell you to worry more about your intellectual rights, property rights, your privacy than i would the second amendment. >> thank you for coming. we are back on obamacare. you said you disagreed with the strategy that senator cruz and mike lee are offering to defund

obamacare. what other alternatives are out there to keep this horrible bill from being implement it on october 1? [applause] >> the debt limit. the debt limit. attach it to the debt limit. the point is, you have -- you attach a repeal of mandatory spending to the debt limit. otherwise the debt limit does not go up. let me make my point, then we will get around to you. the one thing that average americans agree with us, the government wastes money. the one thing the average american agrees with us is that trimming down the size of the federal government is a good thing. an 80% issue in this country. restricting the debt limit does both that and repeals the

obamacare, or at least a laser for a couple years. -- delays it for a couple years. because it is an absolute disaster. why don't we build where our strength is? my strength, let's cut down the size and scope of the federal government, and let's do that through the debt limit rather than have a fight. remember, we lost the 2012 election because nobody knew what we were for, but we also lost the independent voters because -- simply because we did not seem reasonable to them in our approach to government. people did not know what we were for. we talked about what we were against. what we ought to do is put out a message of, here is what -- where we can actually do something that will make a difference for our kids.

not only will we have an impact on obama care, we will also have an impact on spending. i want to crank this thing down. [inaudible] >> i would debate that with you. they did not this last time because they strategically were licking their wounds from the election. how did we get the $158 billion cut? we did it by combining the budget control act with -- the sequester, with the debt limit. so, look, i do not just work strategy on my own. i see john boehner once every two weeks or once every 10 days. i ask in the critical question -- what are you thinking, what are you planning, how are you trying to do it? remember, he does not have a solid, together republican congress. the point is that -- they are the majority. you have to govern.

if you do not govern you are going to get thrown out. so he does not have an easy job of doing things i would like for him to do. he does not have the votes over there to do it. there is not enough conservatives in the house yet. until we get there -- it is kind of like the conversation i had with jim demint, the brainchild behind all this. i would like for them -- for there to be 60 conservatives in the senate. how many of you all think that is a realistic expectation that we'll have in my lifetime? it is not going to happen. it ain't going to happen. the point is, the >>commendation, -- [inaudible] >> i understand that. where are we? >> to defund obamacare, what i'm

hearing from mike lee commercials on tv, heritage foundation, is that they will fund everything but obamacare. how does that shut down the government? >> first of all, the only discretionary portion of obamacare is less than 15% of the total cost. i do not care whether we shut down the government or do not shut down the government, obamacare, 85% will get implemented. if we shut down the government, all the president has to do is declare all the spending associated with obamacare as essential. everything with obamacare will happen, whether we shut it down or not. it will still get implemented. i asked them to do the studies. the fact is, the irony is we shut down the government -- obamacare keeps going even if

>> igovernment shuts down. do not understand. i am trying to understand what you are saying. >> you think the president is going to sign that bill? >> then it is on him. >> let's go back. how big a megaphone do you think the president has in the liberal press? about seven times bigger than our voice. if every republican was preaching the same song and all the conservative-slanted news outlets preached it, we would still get outnumbered seven to one. here's the thing. you are here today. how many of your neighbors are as concerned about this issue as you are? half of them do not even listen to anything. so what do you think, in terms of the influence, in terms of the electorate, that will have?

will it be positive for us in terms of trying to grow our majority and change things? or will it be a two-tall i will tell effort? you, if you're going to go do that, and brett bankrate a strategy that would allow rather than one, i would try to score. difference. it happens no matter what area discretionary spending has to be appropriated area -- appropriate. they get funded regardless of what congress says. there've already said that. that is the irony of that whole strategy. with a debt limit, the government is still running. we decide which bills we are going to pay in redeeming the

bonds. if they cannot borrow more money, what we going to do. they have to start squeezing things down. necessity becomes the mother of invention again. all of a sudden we start shrinking the federal government today -- again. we have not even begun what we can do in terms of shrinking the excesses of the federal government. the average federal employee is $130,000 a year. that's 2.5 times what the family in muskeegee makes. that's the average federal employee. there is a lot of we can do. how about a hiring freeze? how about stopping travel? how about using videoconferencing instead of spending about $580 million a year in one department for conferences? how about doing the things you and i would do when we have to pinch pennies? we create priorities.

we say what is first, what a second, what is third. what is most important. that is starting to happen only because of sequester. we went from 17 days, everyone will be furloughed, to now only four. where did you get the money? they made some decisions, didn't they? certain monies did not spent that were discretionary that could have been spent. all of a sudden, the sequester has turned out to be not a bad deal overall for our kids. a bad deal for some federal agencies, not a good way to do it, but a lot better than not doing anything. what i would -- my approach would be not to use the cr, but to use the debt limit. on grounds the american people agree with us on. they agree with us about obamacare. they do not agree with us about a government shutdown. regardless of who caused it. they think is in competency. -- incompetency. and i agree with them. it is childish to shut the

government down when there are certain legitimate aspect of the federal government that ought to be operating everyday. where are you? >> should i state my name? >> you better. we have the fbi here that will photo you, too. [laughter] >> i'm from broken arrow. my partner and i got here a little late. i did not quite understand you. are you for defunding obamacare or against it? give me a yes or no. >> i'm for defunding of obamacare. >> i'm for defunding of obamacare. >> that is i want to hear, and what most of the people in this room want to hear that. we can count on you to vote that way? because we are going to be looking and watching you, senator. that is what we want you to do,

because we pay your salary. people here comment about -- i want to see your hands, to defund obamacare? >> let me ask a different way -- how many of you want me to defund obamacare if it will force a government shutdown? you have three out of this whole group that will want me to do that strategy. you missed that point. i do not vote for cr's anyway. nobody thought harder and nobody has led the fight against obamacare -- we have got to do six components already out of >> [inaudible] you and i are going to have to disagree.

no, it's not. it's 30 days after that. you and i are going to have to degree. i think the tactic is a failed tactic. you are missing my point. let me set one record straight. it will offend some of you. you elected me to follow the constitution. that's what you elected me to do. you are not going to like every one of my votes. but i do have a 99.2% conservative rating in terms of protecting. no other senator in the u.s. senate has that high of an average. so i have pretty well gone the line of abiding by the constitution. but you are asking me to commit to making a policy vote that is something that i think won't work. i am totally against obamacare. i think this is a foolish way of getting there. next question. >> i am sick of the big federal government. in oklahoma we have a pipeline that should already be done under way. last week the justice department

did an 11th hour stop on a merger of an airline here. what makes me feel like, these big bureaucracies, unelected people, the epa, the irs, the justice department, you can go on and on. it is like they want us to be detroit. we did not vote for him. he got no votes from this state. thank you, obama. we are paying for it. he does an in run around everybody. what can we do to get oklahomans working, to get these things implement it without them sitting up there and saying, this is what you are going to do. instead of the people that own this country telling them what to do. [applause] >> you know, i would tell you, do not blame it all on obama. they were uncontrolled bureaucracies under george bush. i experienced them.

you did, too. it goes back to the thing we started with. this government is on -- out of control. it has been predicted by historians our republic would fail. the question is, how do we cheat history? how do we go back? how do we re-embraced the things that made america great? as i said earlier, we have to get in charge. i have been working for nine years to try to make a big difference. i have made a small difference, not a big difference. i worked to starty -- reassessing -- [applause] changes to the constitution there restore federalism and the constitution relationship. i think that's the way. you're frustrated.

you ought to see me in washington. ask my staff. ask my wife. i want to pull my hair out. i see two things. one, i see the constitution, and i see what's happening to it. then i see grown men and women that don't care. that's what really makes me want to pull my hair out. they ignore what the constitution says because it is better for their political career if they do. that's an abandonment of their oath. [inaudible] >> what about the airline merger? i want to see him -- >> oh, no, it is not over with. you have condemned those airlines to go out of business.

if it is not anti-competitive for those other two. the only reason they are doing this, it's because they want to look touch on anti- trust. it has nothing to do with the facts of the case. the point is, it is arbitrary and it is capreeshes -- is not based on common sense or sound judgment. it is conjured up. they found seven codes. first of all, they found seven codes out of all those codes that are anti-competitive. they are going to stop that merger on the basis of that? it shows you how lawless this administration is. i don't say that word lightly. >> senator, i am one of those federal employees that you were talking about. but i can assure you i don't make anywhere near $138,000 a

i'm with federal public defender. i live up in wagner. you were talking about the sequester and how it has been a good thing and decreasing the size of the federal budget. it's certainly done that. my agency, we don't have a whole lot of discretionary spending. as you might expect, the public defenders don't get the biggest budget for the whole federal government. it is pretty lean. so when there is a big percentage of cuts, like sequester is imposing on us, it means we are equal. we cut three employees. we might have to lay off more at the start of the fiscal year. the funny thing is we are

constitutionally mandated. we prosecute people, yes, but we have to have people to defend those people. we don't take a case because it lose an attorney then it will go to an appointed attorney that gets paid by the hour. it actually ends up costing the government more when we can't take these cases. as a doctor, would you rather do surgery with a scalpel or a hatchet? why doesn't the government step in and say, these are the programs that are efficient, necessary, and these are the programs we think we can waive, and why doesn't congress make that decision instead of imposing and tightening down on some agencies that are necessary and efficient? >> i basically agree with you, the indiscriminate nature of the sequester. i think i said earlier, better

sequester than nothing. your agency, by the way, is one of the most wasteful agencies in washington. it is not my fault the money doesn't come to you. you spent $480 million last year on conferences. half of those could have been done on -- let me finish the point. half of those could have been done on video conferencing. but, no, we decided to spend $400 a night on rooms. the judges are taking a big trip here in the next -- $600-dollar-a-night rooms. the fact is, what do you think? should we have a conference where judges should get together, or should we pay public defenders? nobody is making that choice area so i do not disagree with you on the way it is rolled out. but let me tell you, there is no

place that is not a rife with waste. let me give you one example. you didn't hear one thing about the sequester department, did you? not one peep? why? because there is so much waste in the state department it is nothing to have a 5% cut. and if you had any common sense applied to the manage management of most agencies, it wouldn't be a problem. the second point i would make, president obama to the o.m.b. made this sequester much harder than it needed to be. he had the choice of doing two things. he could make the sequester agency-wide, which means program specific, or he could make it just to the department, and let them meet the goals. he chose to make it specific. so it would exert the most pain on the most people so that he could win the battle of increasing spending. that's what he did, through the o.m.b. so they had a choice. and your department probably would not have got a cut at all,

had he made a choice to do it the smart way, the way a pursuedent person would do it. they did not do it. they went to buy department. by line item, by facility. so the problems we have sequester -- we have the problems we have with sequester because of the choice that the president made to make it as painful as possible. >> senator coburn. will you please explain to the audience what obama did has to do with using the office of personal management to contemplate the health care needs of the static members in congress and not force congress to go on to obama care? [applause] >> i actually raised the question because i turn back about 20%

of my budget every year in the office -- thank you very much, bob. i wanted a decision made, because i think employees that work for me ought to get insurance. i think members of congress ought to be in anything that we ask the american citizens. i have no problem saying that. [applause] but i think asking people who work 15 to 18 hours a day some days to give up health insurance or at least the contribution portion of that health insurance from the senate office, isn't fair to those employees. it is not fair to you. that's my opinion. it doesn't make it right, it's my opinion. i wanted to know what the decision was going to be because i wanted to prepare my budget to hold health insurance for my employees. also, every other federal

employee has a generous 72% payment toward their health insurance. in fact, staff are federal employees under the law. i offered an amendment to put members of congress into the with no contribution from the federal government. i disagree with the ruling on members of congress. i don't disagree with it on the employees that work for you that are employed by the federal government. i think the ruling was totally erroneous. again, outside the law. it is again, another instance of the lawlessness or at least the very loose interpretation of executive privilege which i assure you is not there.

ok. right over here and then one right back over here. >> dr. coburn, on behalf of my family, i appreciate what you've done for us. your sacrifices have been i have a veryknow. difficult question for you. we've talked a lot about the constitution, we've talked about the lawless administration that we currently have. the constitution provides for three branches -- executive, judicial, legislative. we have an executive sitting president, who is rewriting laws, failing to enforce laws he has selecting which part he wants enforced. he is accountable to and who is

-- for enforcing his requirements and responsibilities? [applause] i believe it is the attorney general and we know that is no good. who is the next? >> it is the house of representatives. it is the judiciary committee. what you have to do, is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president. that's called impeachment. [applause] but that is not something you take lightly, and you have to read the historical precedent of what that means.

i think there is some intended violation of the law in this administration, but i also think there is a ton of incompetence of people who are making decisions -- you know, in homeland security, 15-17 top spots right now are empty. i would tell you, a general portion of the nominees are >> evenely incompetent. if they are incompetent -- [inaudible] >> i agree. my wiggle out of that when that is wrip to me, i believe that needs to be evaluated and determined, but thank goodness it doesn't have to happen in the senate. charges are in the house. that is serious measures, but we are in serious times. i don't have the legal background to know if that rises to high

crimes and misdemeanors, but i think they are getting personalously close -- perilously close. let me share with you. ufcis employees -- these are the people that did the background investigation on immigration -- told me personally, managers, that homeland security was told, don't worry about it. ignore the background of those people. this is the management telling the career employees to do something against the law. so i'm documenting all this stuff as it goes along. but i don't know where that level is. i'm kind of like the lady in the back. i am fed up. i am frustrated. i am happy to raise an issue at every forum. barack obama is a personal friend of mine. he became my friend in the senate. that does not mean i agree with everything he is doing or how he's doing.

i quite frankly think he's in a difficult position he's put himself in, and if it continues, i think we're going to have another constitutional conference in our country in terms of the presidency. >> [inaudible] >>it is not just his failure. look, i'll make this point. the rule of law is the one thing that this country has better than anything else. the rest of the world looks at us and says, that's the glue that holds them together. because whether you are poor, a minority, rich, insider, outsider, you have this gentleman in the back who will defend you and make sure that your side of the story gets told. when you are in an

administration that undermines the rule of law, here's what happens -- the next time i make a decision point on the rule of law, i say, well, gosh, if the administration doesn't have to follow the law and the president have to follow the law and the senator doesn't have to follow the law, why should i? all of a sudden, you have a declining public. what we really need is enhanced fidelity to the rule of law rather than the opposite of what we see in this administration. i'll hang around about 10 or 15 minutes. i want to thank you for coming out. i'm glad you are here to stress your point. i think it is great. i just don't agree with it. i have a little bit of an ornery streak in me, independent streak, but that's the one reason why i'm challenging things in washington, too. you may have heard something

here tonight that you disagree with. i got an e-mail coburn.senate.gov. i'm about 10,000 e-mails behind at this point, so i won't get an e-mail to you quickly, but i will e-mail you. so e-mail me if you heard something you didn't like and want to educate me on, and let me know your thoughts, and i will try to warn you, my cost savings -- one of my cost savings is not having as many people to help me write letters, so it takes a little longer for me to write letters. god bless you, and thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama traveled to new york last week to talk about college affordability and the economy. during a town hall meeting he talked about the deficit and health care and possible government shutdown.

>> as the economy has improved over the deficit has gone down. it has dropped at the fastest rate in six years. i want to repeat that because a lot of people think if you ask the average person, they would tell you it is going up every it the deficit has been cut in half since 2009 and is on a downward trajectory. [applause] it has gone down faster than any time since world war ii. we do not have a problem in terms of spending on education. we do not have a problem on research and development area we doe a problem that has to with our health programs -- medicare and medicaid. is because of the affordable care act, obamacare thomas house have gone down --

obamacare, costs have gone down. to the slowest rate we have seen in a long time. we are starting to get health care costs under control and will have to make modifications when it comes to our long-term entitlement programs so they are there for young people here when they are ready for retirement. but we do not have an urgent deficit crisis. the only crisis we have is the one manufactured in washington and it is ideological. we shouldnotion is not be helping people get health care and we should not be helping kids who cannot help themselves and whose parents are under resourced. we should not be helping them get a leg up. some of the proposals we have seen now are talking about even deeper cuts in programs like head start. even deeper cuts in education support and deeper

cuts in science and research. like eating, it is like being penny wise and pound foolish. if young people are not succeeding and we are not spending on research and maintaining our technological and we are not upgrading our roads and bridges and transportation and infrastructure, all things we can afford to do right now should be doing that would put . if weto work right now do not do those things, we would have fallen further and further behind. we get back to washington and with congress gets back thomas this is going to be a major debate. the same would've been having. the difference now is the deck has started to come down. when we should be in cook about is how do we grow an economy --

what we should be inc. about is how should we grow an economy so that we have more opportunity for people who want to work hard. my position is going to be that but doesve a budget spend wisely on those things that are going to help ordinary people succeed. tomorrow the kellogg foundation host a discussion on race including naacp resident been jealous. that is life at 10:00 a.m. eastern. a representative will be in virginia for a town hall meeting to discuss immigration policy. they are working on immigration legislation. it gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern.

>> c-span met we bring public if there are events to you and put you in the room at the white house events and briefings and conferences and offer complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house as a public service of private industry. were created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded i your local provider. you can watch it in hd. >> last week president obama honored the undefeated 1972 championship miami dolphins. the first ceremony honoring them. this includes remarks by coach don shula. [applause] >>, and over, coach. welcome to the white house. have a seat. -- come on over, coach.

it is mid august which means football is in the air. i love baseball. but the sportscenter is better when you have some football on it. college football kicks off next week. and in a fellow break your season the week after that. season theregular week after that. i am proud to welcome the only in nflted, untied team history to the white house for the very first time. given up for the 1972 miami dolphins. [applause] i know it is a little an orthodox. -- on or the dots.

they never got their white house visit after winning super bowl seven. i know some of them are harder to recognize these days. [laughter] afro's ort have the the mutton chops. [laughter] but, i want to recognize and thank first and foremost their outstanding coach, coach a shula. the hall of fame coach. i want to thank everybody from the organization who made this possible after all of this time. some people may be asking why we're doing this after all of these years. my answer is simple -- i wanted to be the younger guy here for once. [laughter]

[applause] i did have to explain to my staff who are mostly in their 30's what an -- impact they had included only when you are playing. history backs made before super bowl champions began visiting the white house. untilid not start coming 1980. it is also a fun thing to do. [laughter] the packers, a few years ago which was hard. i decided was high time to pay tribute to the only perfect team and to give butch and sundance -- in 1972, these guys were a

juggernaut. they had a grinding running game the war opponents down. they were the first team ever with two thousand yard rusher's and they had the league's best offense in the best defense. they posted three shutouts. they doubled the score eight times. they did most of it after their outstanding pro bono quarterback bob griese broke his leg in week five. backup.ught in the he unfortunately cannot be here today. one teammate said earl could not run or throw but he could win. and that is what they did again and again. winning the super bowl was not a foregone conclusion. .hey had to win in pittsburgh once they did, they were still slight underdogs to the redskins

in the big game. they have lost the year before. people were stupidly doubting whether coaches shula was going to win the big one. the pressure was on. but the key to their victory i sonka put anhat c alligator in the coaches shower. [laughter] that loosened everybody up. the dolphins went on to win their first back-to-back titles. with every year, there are compos mentis look better and ishments lookompl better and better. seven players are in the hall of fame. coach sheila finished with more wins in nfl history. each time it has been

challenged, team after team has fallen short. these dolphins did not always get the credit they deserved. some they said they only had to play 14 regular-season games. i have to come clean here. i hosted the 90 85 bears. -- 1985 bears. they did not get a white house visit and they called them the greatest team. -- and i called them the greatest team. [laughter] they lost once in their nearly perfect season. it happened to be against the dolphins. [laughter] [applause] i think you made your point. [laughter] nobody can argue with this record or with what all of you have gone on to do. you hung up the shoulder pass

for the last time. you have gone on to be a major, a doctor, a state senator. many successful businessman. find the most copperheads of spinal injury center. some have dabbled in acting. [laughter] -- one helped to fund the most comprehensive spinal injuries center. these are all men of the commitment and character. the showed on the field and off as well. want to congratulate all of them and make sure they are remembered for not only the history that sports fans will always remember, but all of the contributions they have made in their communities as well. thank you again. it is been an honor to be here. [applause]

>> thank you, mr. president. it is great to be here and we fell honored that 40 years -- what in the hell -- we still feel honored. if you look at the undefeated team, we want to present you with this. even though you are a bear fan, we understand you have to root for somebody. [laughter] this.ody has signed the 1972 dolphins. this is something we hope you find a good spot for. somewhere in your office and where you can look at it. and think about the whipping we put on the 1985 bears. [laughter] [applause]

>> we have to get a good picture. [laughter] [applause] >> congratulations to the miami dolphins. [applause]

thank you. >> next year bring the 1973 dolphins. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, freeze remain standing until the president has exited the east room. -- please remains seeking until the president has exited the easter room. >> thank you everybody. [applause]

...