spectacular piece of ground. montana is our home, the number two elk state in the country and number two in membership but certainly number one and our heart because that is where we are from. we are based in missoula montana. based. i grew up in the dakotas. i have covered both of your bases. thank you for that. yes. the subject before us today is what outdoor facilities provide to our states. i will primarily address the world of the american sportsmen contrasting with professional sports our facilities or venues, if you will, are the greater outdoors that include 5

million acres of public land and million more acres of private land. is in excess of $900 billion which would make us equal to the 24th greatest corporation on the fortune 50 list. it is the greatest wildlife system in the world. that is able statement but it is easy to backup. and it's absolutely true. this is built over the last 110 years over the efforts of american sportsmen and women. the states definitely have it writes.

there are many many recreational assets and the recreation for the american sportsmen and outdoor industry is the wildlife-based agencies that provide for the management and the -- the most unique aspect of our state-based model is the significant portion of the state raised revenue stems from what we call a user pay system. this revenue is generated from sportsmen activities like hunting, fishing licenses, boating, fees. revenue, or as it is more commonly known, the sport fish restoration models. one of the most significant contributors is the lwcf.

i will not dwell on this, as what the gentleman said was correct. we have seen considerable movement in the last 24 hours. it is very encouraging. whether we will see this authorized before the september 30 deadline is yet to be seen but we are encouraged. consider the following partial data relative to our activities in 50 states. hunting, fishing and shooting sports alone represent over 2 million jobs. anglers in the u.s. spend in excess of $38 billion each year. americans in total fish a combined 557 million days each

year. one example of the trickle down -- i love this 1 -- anglers in the united states spend in excess each year of $290 million on ice. there are over 14 million hunters, 19 million archery shooters in the u.s. today. hunters alone spend $21 billion annually. hunters alone spent over 600 million dollars on their hunting dogs each year. sportsmen provide in excess of $3 billion annually for state wildlife cultivation and this comes through the wildlife tagging system. all of these require a vast and healthy landscape of public and private land. we cannot do it without the

land. combine the hunting, fishing, and shooting sports with these activities that take place primarily on public land sometimes on private. birdwatching, mountain biking, four wheeling, snowmobiling skiing, and many, many more. one begins to see the wits and the depth and the significance of the outdoors, especially our resources of land, water, and wildlife. most importantly, these resources are renewable and will contribute to state economy as long as man recognizes our role as the stewards of the land. it is our responsibility. the public and private land represents one of the most value for -- valuable assets we have

and each state has its own unique outdoor assets contributing to their economy. we have the american sportsmen and women primarily to thank for much of this success. it is critical that we continue to use the model of conservation and do not fall prey to the lock it up and look at it preservationist model. nature does not manage itself as long as man is here. man has a significant stewardship responsibility. excuse me. the cornerstone is the land phase management system. primarily state wildlife and natural resource agencies are able to provide conservation and management of our natural resources, enhancement of wildlife habitat, they regulate and enforce management laws.

they provide access opportunities through fees and revenues provided by sportsmen and women each year. i will close my remarks by outlining some of the many challenges i believe we face today. first and foremost, most all of our states manage fiscal challenges. we are well aware of that and we are very concerned about it. today, we have a lakh of adequate funding for our public land management. we need more access to public lands and we need a corporate of planned between public and private landowners for more and better access. we need more state-based input into public land management. the new farm bill provides for some of that. i believe that governor bullock is involved in the project, at

least one i am aware of, but the new farm bill does have provisions that allow for this and we would like to become more aggressive partners with a lot of states in pursuing these opportunities. we need more commonsense environmental policies and less policies with extremist agendas. we need congress to fund lwcf fully. not just authorize it. we need it fully funded. we need coordination among all 50 states in recruiting hunting and fishing a must our youth. a number of ngo's most all state wildlife agencies are part of it -- we need all of the efforts we can get today. finally, local and regional management of our wildlife and

public lands is more critical today than ever. it is the citizens within a given locale or region that give what is best for managing natural resources in their backyards. a one-size-fits-all policy does not work today. we need to get our natural resource management back. this is one of the best ways to sustain rural areas and put it in the vernacular of nowadays, rural life matters and it absolutely represents a culture that we believe is country cannot lose and should not lose. management is a must or more of

our public land will deteriorate. these are a venue for the public outdoor industry. that is the end of my comments and i again appreciate the time to be here. thank you. >> thank you, david. >> my thanks, governor mead, governor bentley, governor tom lee -- titombley for being -- tomblin for being here. wraps a beautiful bucolic outdoor scene like we've find ourselves surrounded with today -- outside anyway -- or perhaps it is a political ideology or political initiatives or environmentally focused

initiatives such as recycling. and regardless of your political persuasion, there is something that i think that we do not talk about enough. what does think green really mean? thinking green matters to everyone. that is the perspective i want to share with you today. when you think about green projects or environmental projects, so many people are dismissive of them as flop. 99% of environmental projects are construction projects. and the vast majority are from economic development. i wanted to show you one example of how an economic development project helped deal with the

catastrophe that faced our state. in our experience, it stems from the deepwater horizon oil spill. as you know, in 2010, the deepwater horizon went down and the oil began to gosh. 68,000 square miles of ocean were eventually covered with oil . that is the size of oklahoma. what we began to realize it was an economic disaster. i worked with governor bentley and people along the alabama and gulf coast and throughout the gulf coast. we did not realize which a clean environment affected our businesses. you see, the businesses along the gulf did not really go anywhere. there were still restaurants there were still shops, there

were still souvenir places. and they kept coming -- but people quit coming because of the damage to the environment. after cleanup, then we began to work to restore. the work began early on with cooperation with bp and we negotiated a billion dollars in early restoration funds through the natural resource damage assessment process. and bp understood that if were -- if they were to fund the restoration of natural resources, they could protect themselves from liability and the federal and state trustees realized we could put that money to work. we could mitigate not only the damages, but the economic impacts as well. of the billion dollars that was

secured from bp, our state received $100 billion. of the $100 million, we decided with the agreement of the other trustees that we were going to enhance our gulf state park. the gulf state park is located along alabama's gulf coast. it is 650 acres. from the white sand beaches to the coastal woodlands, the wetlands, the natural resources that were there were just waiting to be enhanced. as the governor said, we lost a lot since the 1970's. it was lost due to hurricane ivan. so, the question people have is why in the world are you using funds to do other enhancements to the gulf state park.

the reason is it provides what we restore is not just natural resources, but the use of them. in order for natural resources to be appreciated, people have to use them. we see a history of building boardwalks and sidewalks and ramps so the people could get to natural resources. our project is no different. what our project does is give the people of alabama the people of this nation and opportunity to access the natural resources. not just for a minute, not just for an hour, but to stay overnight, to be one with the environment as they spend time on vacation or otherwise with the natural resources. our project consists of five elements. one, enhancing the visitor

experience, including an additional five miles of trails for biking, birding. this is an addition to trails that already exist. areas to pause and take a break. the second element is to restore the dunes. that is clearly a natural resource that needs to be restored. what we have now is a berm. we built a berm to protect the highway that runs along the be from hurricanes. but firms do not -- firms do not survive naturally like dunes. we will restore 50 acres of dunes on alabama's gulf coast there any park. we will also build an environmental information center. this will serve as a gateway to

the park, so people can learn more about these natural resources. after all, if we are going to reserve the outdoors, we have to educate people especially children, as to their importance. and that is a fourth element, creating an education and resource center. it will have labs. it will have dorm space, taking 12 students to come through these school year, to learn about our environment, space for them to get hands-on, to perhaps remove some of the species that have invaded the gulf state park and replace them with indigenous species, and finally to rebuild the lodge. the plan is to build a 350-room lodge that is within the footprint of the lodge that has existed there from the 1970's,

and also to create meeting space so people can have an opportunity to get together and meets, to create an opportunity to have space there as well. this construction project will cost more than the 85 and a half alien dollars we have secured. it will probably cost an additional $50 billion. we have plans to raise that financing through the state which is pending in our legislature now. but $35 million that is the construction cost. the impact is close to $300 million for our state. over $160 million as a contribution for the gross domestic product for our state over $79 million in earnings. that is just construction. once it is built, you will see

economic impacts substantially more. the potential economic impact will be 68.2 million dollars each year for the city of gulf shores were the park is located in baldwin county. the project itself, directly and indirectly, through the jobs that will be created as the park is enhanced will support over 616 new jobs -- new jobs -- and 16.4 million dollars in annual payroll. the annual off-site spending -- 14.2 million dollars i the year 2020 and 19.6 million in economic impacts from that point forward. so, you see in thinking green there is an additional green

element to consider. not just the natural resources but also the economic development. i will leave you with that thought. something you already know, but as we share it, to think green differently. >> thank you for that. thank you to all of our panelists. i would like to thank the newest member of this committee, oregon governor kate brown. we are glad to have you with us. now we would like to open up a meeting to any discussion, any questions from the governors -- comments? >> thank you all three for the great presentations. we appreciate you being here. david, this is a question for you and i appreciate your

presentation. one of the challenges, it seems that we face -- we recognize the hunters and those who fish -- they pay a lot of the bills in terms of wildlife, but there are many beneficiaries -- photographers, people would just want to hike, and we are looking at the state model how do we monetize some of that? how do we do that because we recognize too often it is just put on sportsmen's shoulders to do that. we actually have gone to the general fund to do that. when we look at states, had we make sure that we continue this great model of conservation and continue to do the job? and the second question is -- continually we have programs -- i know other states do, as well.

for the continuity of this, for us to go back, for those of us you've got to engage the next generation, you've got to engage the young people. i do not have any data on this, but anecdotally, we worry about our young people spending more time inside. what do we have to stimulate that interest? they spend time on their cell phones and they are entertained with something that is, in my view, not as valuable as taking a look outside and seeing the vistas in the wildlife. so, those are the two questions. mr. allen: ok. i will do the second one first. we wrestle a lot with trying to crack the code with the kids today in the youth.

that age group, 12 to 20, if you will roughly, their whole world is here, it seems like. i've got two teenage sons and unfortunately, that is where they are at. i think one of the things we have learned is we have to make it more relevant in their terms which some of it has to go there in the delivery system. one of the encouraging things today is a lot of the young kids are kind of into their own little mini adventures, if you will, primarily driven by this so they can share with their friends and do what they do when they are doing all of that. so, we are trying very hard to figure out how do we do that? we spent a fair amount of money.

we are starting to retain -- this old white guy here is not going to do it for them, and i and not relevant to what they are thinking. the path we are going down. that has every state represented. we are moving rapidly towards creating a campaign, which will be very similar to the boating taking the fishing, taking the campaign that has been running for some time now and we are

trying to find what is that relevant message that will resonate with the kids and get them out and the outdoors? i don't have the answer to that today, beat -- to be totally honest. one of the things that is driving right now that is very interesting is called the locavore movement in some of our urban areas. that is, some of the twentysomethings, even thirtysomethings they want to know where their food comes from. they want to eat meat that they know where it comes from and they wanted to be organic. we live in montana and wyoming. i say locavore, and they are like, you are speaking a foreign language. in the urban areas it is

happening more and more where they are deer hunting to provide their own food. interestingly enough, one of the most high profile individuals is mark zuckerberg, who is the founder of facebook who does it. when he started talking about it it started getting attention. how do we embrace that in capture that and how do we make it more relevant? i live in billings, montana. i can go into a lot of schools in billings. west high, probably the largest high school in the state probably. you would not dare talk about hunting and fishing and whatnot. that should not the -- that should not be in montana. it is a reality today. we have to get around those issues if we are going to maintain, not only this culture,

but what we have for resources. i am kind of getting off on a tangent. it's all related. it has to go into a bag that we address with you. your other question about state models, state budgets being stretched and stretched and there's more and more demand. the new word today is a non-consumptive species and whatnot. it is a real issue for a couple reasons. one, you have your key customer, your best customer is the hunter and the fisherman and they are scared to death they are going to lose their relevance and their seat at the table, if you will. and at the same time, you have the birdwatcher or the wildlife photographer and they are using as much of the resources as anybody else, and they are really not contributing to the management and the enforcement

etc. we have to figure out how they do contribute, and we have to not resist as hunters and fishermen -- we have to not be afraid -- again, they say have a seat at the table. i'm afraid the real seat at the table is the election every year. that is your seats. that is your voice is as citizen. to have them participate without having us give up what we have -- we being these sportsmen. that is the dilemma we have today. i am sitting on a council that is going through this. we have a meeting in august. how do we address that? what do we had then if i that will contribute to the state budgets, to help provide

resources and help manage for them? it will take some willingness to give on both sides of that table for this to happen. what you guys did an wyoming a couple years ago when you are faced with that budget issue, i believe the general fund started to cover the retirement and benefits for your game and fish employees. it is something we have been talking about with montana's group and i think that is one significant game. i know there is several million dollars that was gained. how do we get all of these other users of the resource into the pool of contribution is the $64,000 question. do we expand the pitman robinson to expand more equipment being

used for wildlife and outdoor resource? it is plausible, but where does that line get drawn? which product is it? etc.. think we will have to be bold and be willing to take some steps, because i know a lot of the states, especially the western states that we work with most are really stretched. i know were again is facing significant fiscal challenges right now and they are all in the same boat. i do not have the answer, these silver bullet, but i know the answer is going to include we have got to all come to the table and be willing to solve the problem and not played defense quite as much. governor tomblin: -- governor mead: thank you, david.

governor tomblin: governor bullock? governor bullock: i had 11 million visitors last year. if i go down to the hunting, fishing -- we can quantify chartered 50,000 residents 150,000 nonresidents. they spent $907 million on our state. on the hunting site is $350 million in our state. we certainly struggle with it. as david knows fish and wildlife issues are probably the most controversial things we deal with every single session but by the same token, there are times when those pitman robinson dollars and others are inadequate. to be able to sell -- our chores bring in $300 million of state

and local tax revenues each year. the only way we continue to do that or annually on the hunting side is there are times it cannot all be put on the sportsmen's and the women -- sportsmen and women's back. mr. allen: i live in montana. it is the best bargain in town as a resident, the residents hunting license and all the things i can do with it. i know i will get fired for this. we should be spending more as residents for the privileges we have as -- in hunting and fishing. that will not generate the answer. it will help. we have been non-residents fees just about as high as it will go . it is a dilemma. it has to be addressed because

we are running rapidly into a brick wall. just about all of the western states i know of. governor tomblin: further questions? if not, i think our panelists -- oh, did you have something you wanted to say. >> i know i am not allowed to ask a question, but i wanted to add a comment. they have been very active studying youth engagement. i think there are a lot of parallels. the boys scouts had dropped from 34% to 8% participation over the last 20 years. what west virginia has done has been pretty remarkable because it brings in nontraditional activities that kids want to engage in. baseball, we found two things. one thing youth involvement is

determined by our early was your first experience at a ballgame and did you actively participate or play? it seems to me a parallel is how early did your dad take you fishing? i remember the first day my dad took me fishing. i have tried to fish every day since then. we can't all do that, but how do we make it fun, make it engaging, capture kids early or younger, because we not going to compete with the mobile device. it has killed all of us not to have the machine out in front of us the last hour. there is no substitute for the resilience that kids learn from being outside. so, whether it is providing a resource.

earl tomblin tries to preserve 11 miles of the river. having that resource, benefiting the early activity and did you actively engage simply turns the switch on for kids and baseball is a lifetime. i know it did for me, the same thing with the love of the outdoors and love of fishing. mr. allen: in a follow-up to that, i know several states have -- colorado has, maintain a -- montana just approved it -- a mentor license. kids before they have had hunter ad, where they are required to be with a parent or guardian -- before they have had hunter ed, where they are required to be with a parent or guardian, but they were allowed to go out and hunt certain things. getting them hope during gauge that a younger age, and it has

proven to be successful in many states. and the other thing that is encouraging is the statistics for the growth of females in hunting and fishing and -- believe it or not -- archery is really helpful about that, if mom is engaged, everybody is engaged. that is a strong plus for us. we are seeing a lot of growth in that area. we hope to sustain it. governor tomblin: governor bentley? governor bentley: let me say -- i am closing. i would like to say thank you. out of the tragedy we had, not only alabama, but the entire gulf coast this community deals with commerce. we have a combination meeting dealing with tourism.

out of tragedy, we are developing something that is very important. no one wants tragedy. no one wants disasters to hit their state, but when disasters do hit their state, you need to find a way to make lemonade out of lemons. i cannot speak for the other southern states, but i just want to thank cooper, who was my legal advisor. they let him continue to work with me. we are going to bring back 32 miles of the whitest sand in the world. we want to bring back a convention center and we will have conventions -- not in florida. i do not go to florida anymore to speak to alabama people. i refuse to do that. we are building a convention

center and we will have conventions in alabama for this. the university of alabama has allowed him to do that and he has helped me. >> there is one for alabama, there is one for wyoming. ours does not have sand in it -- [laughter] governor tomblin: ok, are there further questions or comments? do any of the governors have anything else to bring before the committee? if not, i declare the committee adjourned. thank you all for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> and we will have more from the national governors association tomorrow as they continue their summer meeting in west virginia. the panel begins with a description on prescription drug abuse, and then later a discussion with thomas perez on the way to stimulate state economies. the meeting concludes with the hss secretary sylvia burwell. all that begins at 9:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on newsmakers this weekend kentucky congressmen and harold rogers is our guest. as chair of the house appropriations committee, he talks about the budget process and the potential for an ongoing resolution or omnibus spending bill. watch at the clock p.m. -- 6:00

p.m. eastern on c-span. and the senate gavels and sunday at 2:00 p.m.. they will consider amendments to the current highway bill. funding is set to expire at the end of the month without congressional action. we spoke earlier with a capitol hill reporter. >> with current funding set to run out of into the month, the senate is set to formally begin debate on its bill. manu raju of politico, you're right that ted cruz came to the floor and accused mitch mcconnell of telling a flat-out lie. tell us what that was all about. mr. raju: it was really a remarkable moment. rarely do you see a senator going and singling out another senator in stark terms, accusing them of lying, someone within their own arty. and stashed their own party. and certainly a party leader.

it just does not happen in a chamber like the senate. it is usually a very collegial place. you're not supposed to address senators directly. but mitch mcconnell assured him and other republicans that the xm bank, which is the nation's chief credit agency, that mcconnell did not cut a deal to allow the xm bank to move forward as part of the negotiation. ted cruz went to the floor and he gave mcconnell the eye. mcconnell said very clearly, i did not cut any sort of deal on the xm bank. he said the only promise was the members could bring it as an amendment. but mcconnell took the procedural steps to bring the xm bank measured directly to the floor assuming he can pass the

60 votes on sunday. ted cruz says that was backtracking, calling it a lie repeatedly using the l word, and he believes that this is an issue that plays well for him and his presidential campaign. remember, he is running as the guy battling the party leadership, and this is an issue where he perfectly illustrates that. >> what was mcconnell's reaction? mr. raju: it was a big smile actually. my colleague saw him shortly afterward. he asked for a comment and he smiled and walked away. we reached out to his office. clearly, they are trying to avoid the controversy. they believe if they engage with ted cruz, they will elevate him in a way that he wants.

i think their strategy is just to not pay attention, to envoy -- to ignore the controversy. >> the senate comes back for a rare sunday afternoon session. and our two amendments. one on the xm bank, but one that would repeal the affordable care act. how to those get mixed up with the highway bill? mr. raju: the obamacare repeal very clearly was an effort by mcconnell, knowing you is going to get attacked by the right for allowing the xm bank measured to move forward to give those republicans, give himself some political cover. these are the things that we said we were going to try to do. so, mcconnell decided he would move forward on the procedural motion and the cost of doing that would be a vote on the obamacare repeal. the thing is, we know that the

obamacare repeal will not pass the 60 votes and even if it did, the president would veto it. >> and the republicans do not have the votes. mr. raju: it is mostly a symbolic gesture, if that. and he knew that he needed to get that trade bill through. and now, the highway is the last build to move the xm bank forward and if it is supported by bipartisan majorities in both chambers mcconnell is under pressure, and as a result, he agreed to move forward and he is getting whacked by the right and ted cruz. >> you tweeted about this. this tries to overturn the ruling of chair. it's the same way reeid

invoke the nuclear option. mr. raju: is a curiosity of senate procedure. essentially ted cruz offered an amendment about iran, iran deal saying that iran should recognize israel's right to exist. of course that has nothing to do with the highway bill. they said that it was not germane and the chair who oversees the floor upheld the ruling of the parliamentarian. now any senator can seek to overturn the ruling of the parliamentarian. to do so, you need a simple majority. typically senators avoid doing that because if you tried to overall every ruling of the chair, there would be actual chaos in the senate to rid their needs to be some order. it is rarely done. the last congress, senate majority leader harry reid did

that when he wanted to change the filibuster rules under the presidential nominees. and that was referred to as the nuclear option. of course, at that time he had enough democratic votes to bush that through and the filibuster as a result was gutted. in this case, ted cruz does not have the votes. i'm sure the party leaders will vote against him. democrats will not vote with them. as a result, his effort will fail. but he can show this as an effort to stifle his voice. >> the house has passed a short temporary extension to highway funding. where does this end up at the end of the month? mr. raju: that is a great question. the house and the senate are a complete different ends on this. they have much different strategies. we will see how it plays out.

right now house republicans say they will not take up the senate bill. even going through all of this they will probably push it through. the expectation is there probably will be some short-term extension, another short-term expansion -- extension. perhaps they will have a conference agreement after they come back from the august recess, but it does not look like any sort of resolution before the august recess. >> manu raju is the senior congressional reporter for politico. you can read his reporting a politico.com. thanks for joining us today. mr. raju: any time. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you hearings that shape policy. every morning, washington

journal is live with your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span -- created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> it is almost as if they were matter and antimatter. >> no. ♪ >> he is always to the right and almost always to the right and anything complicated confuses him. >> filmmakers robert gordon and morgan neville talk about their documentary "the best of enemies" about the debates between william f. buckley and gore vidal. >> today -- the members are

dwindling, talking about hot topics, hot, salacious topic number two. whereas then i don't think that was the norm on tv at the time, and i don't think these guys needed -- as morgan said, these guys did not need -- >> howard was the moderator and he was a distinguished news man and i think he was embarrassed by this. he disappears for sometimes five or more minutes at a time. today, you would not have the moderator not jumping in every 30 seconds. really, i think everybody at abc just stood back and let the fire burn. >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> coming up next, democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton talks about the economy at an event in new york city. then a discussion of planned

parenthood videos. and then a nether chance to see a summit held by the national governors -- governors association. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton was in new york city friday, where she talked about her economic agenda. some of the proposals included changes to capital gains and executive compensation. at the start of this event, she spoke about her use of a private e-mail server well serving as secretary of state and allegations of classified information being mishandled in the process. this is just over an hour. >> hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] mrs. clinton: thank you. thank you. hi. hi.

thank you all very much. thank you. thank you. [laughter] thank you very, very much. i -- i want to tell you it is wonderful being back here at nyu and i thank you all for joining me today, and especially my good friend and former colleague congresswoman carolyn maloney. thank you so much for coming. i am grateful for this opportunity to share some of my further. about the economy and the work that our country needs to do in the years ahead. first, i want to say a word about what is in the news today. and it is because there have been a lot of inaccuracies as congressman cummings made clear this morning. maybe the heat is getting to everybody.

we all have a responsibility to get this right. i have released 55,000 pages of e-mails. i have said repeatedly that i will answer questions before the house committee. we are all accountable to the american people to get the facts right, and i will do my part. but i am also going to stay focused on the issues, particularly the big issues that really matter to american families. you know, over the past few months, i have had the pleasure of meeting young people all over our country. many came of age in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the deep recession a cause. the fallout from that crash has tempered their expectations for the future and left them clear eyed about the challenges ahead.

the challenges they face and that america faces. yet like generations of americans before them, there is also undimmed optimism. today's young people are preparing to enter an economy they know will be competitive. not just at home but globally. they are thinking about how to find a good job after graduation that can help them get ahead and stay ahead. the risk of a setback or potentially another crisis, is never far from their minds. but what inspires me is they are undaunted by these challenges. they are seeking real opportunities and real rewards for the work they put in and they are hopeful that tomorrow will indeed be better than today. so i hear the stories everywhere i go. the hard work and grit and sacrifice of people across our country that have brought us

that and driven our recovery. so, yes, now we are standing again, but we are not yet running the way america should. no country is better positioned to thrive in today's global economy that we are. we have the most innovative, enterprising private sector and the most talented workers anywhere in the world. corporate profits are at near record highs but paychecks for normal people have barely budged. and out of pocket costs for everything, from health care to childcare to college to caring for aging parents, are rising a lot faster than wages. that is putting a lot of pressure, and norman us pressure on families and their budgets. my mission, from my first day as president to the last will be to raise the incomes of hard-working americans so they

can once again afford a middle-class life. we need to -- [applause] we need to end the wage stagnation that is holding back our families and holding back our country. this is the defining economic challenge not only of this election, but our time. it gets to the core of who we are as a nation. the basic bargain of america. if you work hard, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. and when you get ahead, our country gets ahead, too. i laid out a broad economic agenda to raise incomes and build an economy that works for everyone, not just those already at the top. it is an agenda for fair growth

and long-term growth and i will continue outlining plans and all of these areas from setting ambitious goals for new infrastructure and clean energy investments, to reining in excessive risk on wall street. today, i want to focus in particular on long-term growth. consider this fact. a survey of corporate executives found that more than half would hold off making a successful long-term investment if it meant missing a target in the next quarterly earnings report. in another recent survey, more than 60% said the pressure to provide short-term returns had increased over the previous five years. we also know publicly held companies facing pressure from shareholders are less likely to invest in growth the con -- growth opportunities than their

privately held counterparts. large public companies now return eight or nine out of every $10 they earn directly back to shareholders. either in the form of dividends or scott -- stock buybacks that can temporarily boost share prices. last year, the total reached a record 900 billion dollars. that does not leave much money to build a new factory or build a research lab or train workers or give them a raise. in fact, according to "the wall street journal" while typical companies in the s&p 500 doubled the share of cash flow they spent on dividends and stock buybacks, they actually cut capital expenditures on things like new plants and equipment. as a founder of the investment management company vanguard put

it, a culture of short-term speculation has run rampant. one other concerned business leader calls it quarterly capitalism. i understand that most ceo's are simply responding to very real pressures from shareholders and the markets to turn in good quarterly numbers. and investors are always looking for a strong, reliable returns. but it is clear the system is out of balance. the deck is stacked into many ways and powerful pressures and incentives are pushing it even further out of balance. quarterly capitalism is neither legally required nor economically sound. it is bad for business bad for wages, and bad for our economy. and fixing it will be good for

everyone. an increasing number of business leaders, investors, and academics are mobilizing to change the culture of boardrooms, classrooms and trading floors and to better align incentives for long-term growth. for the sake of our economy and our country we need to stand with them. innovators like google and spacex are investing in research that does little for today's bottom line, but may yield transformational benefits down the line. venture capitalists are patiently nurturing the next disruptive innovators. the big three automakers -- gm, ford, and chrysler -- a putting the memory of the crisis behind them and putting new investments in factories and technologies of the future, including advanced

batteries. companies like trader joe's and quick trip that invest in workers and improve wages and training are large employers like starbucks have raised wages for entry-level workers. the trend has extended to mcdonald and walmart. you may have heard that i am a fan of chip like. -- chipotle. [laughter] that is not just because of their burrito bowls. last month, the company announced it would have paid sick days, paid vacation time, and reimbursement to its part-time employees. [applause] these are all smart, long-term investments that will and do pay off for companies workers, and

our society. they point to an important question for the future of our economy. how do we define shareholder value in the 21st century? is it maximizing immediate returns, or delivering long-term growth? of course, we want to do both. but today, too often, the former comes at the expense of the latter. real value is lasting value. we all know that in our own lives. i learned it watching my father swept over the printing table in his small fabric shop in chicago. he's there and -- he saved to provide for our families future. it wasn't good enough to be secure for today. what mattered was tomorrow. what is true in life is also true in business. real value comes from long-term

growth not short-term profits. it comes from building companies, not stripping them. from creating good jobs, not eliminating them. from seeing workers as assets to cultivate, not costs to be cut. american business needs to break free from the tyranny of today's earnings reports so they can do what they do best. innovate invest, and built tomorrow's prosperity. it's time to start measuring value in terms of years for the next decade, not just the next quarter. that is one of the ways we can raise income, help families get ahead, and deliver real value for shareholders. now there's no single cause of quarterly capitalism, therefore no single solution. but there are parts, specific

reforms that can be made by both the private and public sector that would better align market incentives for long-term growth. reforms that many forward thinking business leaders themselves have been calling for. i will mention five areas of focus today. but this list should be the beginning of the discussion, not the end. first, i'm proposing a reform of taxes on capital gains. the profits earned by the sale of stock and other assets. to promote and reward investment. the current definition of a long-term holding period, just one year, is woefully inadequate. that may count as long-term for my baby granddaughter, but not for the american economy. it's no way to run a tax system. as president, i would move to a six-year sliding scale that provides real incentives for long-term investment.

for taxpayers in the top bracket, families earning more than $465,000 a year, any gains from selling stock in the first two years would be taxed just like ordinary income. then the rate would decrease each year until it returns to the current rate. this means that from the moment investors buy into a company they will be more focused on its future growth strategy than its immediate profit. so will some executives who are paid in part with stock or stock options. i will also be looking at ways to address very short term trading. whether it is conducted over days hours, or even milliseconds. we should offer the chance to eliminate capital gains taxes altogether for certain long-term investments in small businesses, including innovative startups and hard-hit communities, from inner cities, to call country

to indian country. -- to caoloal country. this should go hand-in-hand with a real expanded tax code which encourages investment import or remote communities and helps prevent downward spirals after economic disruption, like plant closings or layoffs. i want to see more investors helping unlock the potential of the family business that is struggling to get back on its feet. o'er the startup that is on the verge of making it big. or the community that lost the factory where generations of families worked, but now is eager to build a new future. that is long-term growth at its best. now of course, i understand these changes to the tax code alone will not shift investor's focus from short-term to long-term overnight. but i believe this reform is an important first step to removing some of the incentives that push

us towards quarterly capitalism. this would be part of a broader reform of both individual and corporate taxes that i will be discussing later in the campaign. latsst week, i called for closing the loophole and incrementing the buffet rule, which major cleaners don't plate roller makes vendor secretary. -- which makes sure they don't pay lower rates than in their secretaries. the second area where action is needed is to address the influence of increasingly assertive shareholders, determined to extract maximum profit in the minimum amount of time, even at the expense of the future growth. so-called activist shareholders can't have a positive influence on companies. it's a good thing when investors

put pressure on management to stay nimble and accountable or press for social and environmental progress. but that is very different from these hit-and-run activist, whose goal is to force in immediate payout, no matter how much it discourages and distracts management from pursuing strategies that would add the most long-term value for the company. even iconic businesses like apple or proctor and gamble have felt this pressure. we need a new generation of committed, long-term investors to provide a counterweight to the hit and run activists. some institutional investors already are beginning to push back. we need more pension funds and proxy advisory firms to do so as well. institutional investors control 70% of the shares in the largest

1000 u.s. companies. they have unmatched influence and therefore, and unmatched obligation to guide companies towards strategies and metrics focused on long-term value. there are things government should do as well. as president, i would order a full review of regulations on shareholder activism, some of which haven't been re-examined in decades. let alone modernized to reflect changing realities in our economy. we also have to take a hard look at stock buybacks. investors and regulators like ignore information about these transactions. capital markets work out when information is available to all. places like the u.k. and hong kong require companies to disclose stock buybacks within one day. but here in the u.s., you can go

an entire quarter without disclosing. so let's change that. and buybacks read directly to the third area of focus. reforming executive compensation. we cannot address the challenge of quarterly capitalism without making sure that incentives for ceo's and other executives or my focused on the long-term growth and strength of the company they run and less on the short-term fluctuation in its share price. i am all for rewarding ceo's well when their companies prosper, and their employees also share in the rewards. but there is something wrong with senior executives getting rich from companies stuttering and employees struggling. there is something wrong when corporate boards allow exorbitant pay packages that aren't based on credible assessments of executive performance or a company's

long-term interest. 30 years ago, top ceos made 50 times what typical worker did. today, they make 300 times more. that just doesn't make sense. previous generations of executives were just as talented and hard-working, and he managed to get by with much more reasonable compensation. so have ceos in other countries. it would be good for our economy and our country if we get back to compensating all employees with productivity, not just to those at the top. in the 1990's, there was an effort to tie executive compensation to company performance, including through the use of stock options. but many stock heavy pay packages have created a perverse incentive for executives to seek the big payouts that could come for a temporary rise in share price. we ended up encouraging some of

the same short-term thinking we meant to discourage. in addition, while the dodd frank financial reform legislation passed in 2010 called for new regulations regarding disclosure of executive compensation, many rules have yet to be put in place. that includes a requirement to publish the ratio between ceo pay and the paychecks of everyday employees. there is no excuse for taking five years to get this done. workers have a right to know whether executive pay at their company has gotten out of balance, and so does the public. we need to take several steps here. defend the dodd frank act, the republican attacks, and finally promised rules on the books. reform of the performance-based tax-deductible for top executives. expand disclosure requirements under the say on pay rule to

include an expedition of how executive compensation will promote the long-term health of the company. now a crucial fourth area of reform is how workers are seen as the engines of growth as they are. research shows that well-paid and well-trained employees tend to work more efficiently, stay on the job longer, and provide better customer service. but those rewards can be harder to measure then the immediate costs of payroll and training. so under the pressure of quarterly capitalism, they are often squandered. employer funded job training has fallen by more than one third in the past two decades, even as the premium on skilled workers has increased in a competitive level economy. even where training programs do exist, too few are focused on providing broadly applicable

sectoral skills. the decline of unions and worker bargaining power has led to a decline in worker voices, in long-term decision-making at many companies. it snows apprise that we have seen -- it is no surprise we have seen corporate investment in human capital decline as well. we need to start reverse all of these trends. as president i will fight to defend workers rights and encourage more companies to invest in their employees. in his campaign, iparty proposed -- into this campaign, i have already proposed a package for every new worker that businesses train and higher, as well as a plan to encourage more companies to offer more generous profit-sharing programs. i've also called for raising the minimum wage and incrementing present obama's new rule on overtime. let me add, i agree with new york's proposal to raise wages for fast food workers to $15 an hour. the national minimum wage needs

to be raised. let's also remember that the cost of living in manhattan is different than in little rock and other places. so new york or los angeles or seattle are right to go higher. we are going to ask the private sector to invest in the long-term, let's also face up to the fact that washington may well be the worst offender of all when it comes to short-term thinking. this is the fifth area of reform that is desperately needed. it is time to and the -- end the era of budget brinksmanship and stop careening from one self-inflicted crisis to another. [applause] that just creates more in certainty for businesses, for investors, and for our country. i have been asking a lot of business leaders whom i have talked to, what are a couple

things would love to see happen? almost to a person, we'll always say, we need more particularly. we can deal with whatever does come out of washington, but when it doesn't come, when there are stalemates or government shutdowns, that interferes with our business. and particularly, without global business -- with our global business. that is an obvious thing to say but i hope the people in washington will pay attention. let's stop pouring subsidies into industries that are already thriving, like the giveaways in the tax code to oil companies. [applause] start investing in the future to create millions more new jobs in the new economy. we should be making smart investments in infrastructure, innovation education, and clean energy that will help businesses and entrepreneurs grow and create the next generation of

high-paying jobs. we know the investment that would be made in these areas have very high returns. there is no excuse not to make them, and to make them now. for example, we should improve and make permanent the research and experience asian tax credit. -- experimentation tax credit. every year, congress has another squabble over to renew discredit. they have done it 16 times in the past 35 years. isn't it time we stop kicking the can down the road and actually get down to doing people's business? as important as the specific reforms i have outlined are the truth is that to fight against quarterly capitalism cannot be won in washington alone. the private sector has to rise to the challenge. we are already seeing a movement for change taking shape. investors, executives, and employees are all starting to step up. union leaders are investing their own pension funds in

putting people to work to build tomorrow's clean energy economy. they earn a good returns doing that. we need to build on this momentum. it's time to return to an old fashioned idea. that companies response abilities to their shareholders also encompasses a responsibility to employees customers, communities, and ultimately to our country, and yes, our planet. [applause] the strength and legitimacy of american capitalism has always depended on its ability to create opportunities for hard-working families, to get ahead generation after generation. we can't lose sight of that. i'm pleased that sense 2010, 31 states have invaded -- enacted legislation authorizing so-called benefit rations, -- benefit corporations, which

allow is mrs. to pursue -- allow businesses to pursue-- that has real merit, and we should explore it further. what is good for middle-class families also happens to be good economics. we know that a strong, sustainable growth can help me happened when communities are thriving and workers are well-paid. after all, our economy is a 70% conception economy. it is the old henry ford story when he decided he would be paying his workers, as i recalled, the princely sum five dollars a day. a lot of his peers really rose up in opposition. how can you do this? you're going to throw off the labor market, you're setting a bad example. his response was, i am building these cars, funny people to buy them. -- i need people to buy then. our economy is not working

because we are not putting paychecks in enough americans so that they can refuel this economy which not only holds up the american economy, but holds up the global economy. it is in everyone's interest, including corporate america's, to contribute to a vibrant middle class and rising incomes. now as president, i won't try to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. but i will use the convening power of the office to bring all relevant parties together to help move our corporate culture towards solid, long-term growth and investment. just imagine how different our history would have been if short-term-ism had dominated earlier eras the way it does today. what if an activist hedge fund had persuaded at&t to maximize cash flow and close bell labs

before the transistor, or the laser was invented? what if xerox had decided that it palo alto research firm wasn't doing enough to boost share prices in the short term? a young steve jobs would never have visited, and the personal computer revolution might not have happened. would've congressional budget cuts had shut down darpa, the defense advanced research project agency, before it developed the early internet? today, we face a choice between the future and the past. republicans running for president seem totally unconcerned about the problem of quarterly capitalism. in fact, their policies would make it worse. most would eliminate capital gains for wealthy investors with no incentives for long-term holding. they would wipe out the new rules on wall street, imposed

after the crisis. and of course, they would further strip worker rights and we can bargaining power. -- weaken bargaining power. their approach to government mirrors the worst tendencies of hit-and-run shareholders, demanding quick payouts in the form of tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of investing in the future. they ignore long-term challenges like climate change, poverty and inequality, failing infrastructure. just look at the current mess in congress with the highway bill. we can't afford to return to staying out of touch, out of date policies that have wrecked our economy. we have to work together to drive strong growth, their growth, and long-term growth. -- fair growth. that is the only way we will renew the basic bargain of america. you know it. if you work hard, you should be

evil to get ahead and stay ahead. when you do -- you should be able to work hard and stay ahead. the only way we can build an economy for tomorrow, not just today. i invite you to join me in this discussion. i am looking for new creative, innovative, disruptive ideas that will save cap them -- save capitalism for the 21st century. because it is the greatest engine of economic opportunity and potential that's ever been invented. it's one of the great accomplishments of the american political and economic history that created the opportunities that so many generations of americans took advantage of and that led to the middle class the extraordinary economic conference of our country. -- a compliments ---

accomplishments of our countries. and like in previous eras, it needs to be reinvented, put back to balance. it needs to recognize that we really are in this together. the better we all do, the more there will be for everybody. to invest in, to profit from. so i ask you, in particularly here, the students and faculty and others who are studying business, help us think through the best ways to change the culture, to move it back to where it used to be, which was much more focused on long-term investing. with the results of the extraordinary prosperity that we enjoyed for decades. with new challenges from technology and globalization and other big problems on the

horizon like climate change. but that is what we are best at doing in this country. we are problem solvers, not problem deniers. we roll up our sleeves, we get to work, and we keep moving forward. it is always all about tomorrow. love that song, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. [laughter] so help me think about it, and let's make it happen. thank you all very much. [applause] ♪

>> there is more road to the white house coverage with democratic candidate lincoln chafee. he sat down to talk with us about his decision to leave the republican party. that discussion airs at six:35 eastern.

here on c-span. >> considered underrated, caroline harrison was an accomplished artist to took up china painting and carried that interest to the white house. she was interested in women's issues and help raise funds for johns hopkins university on the condition it admit women. caroline harrison, the sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, first ladies influence and image. for martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> coming up next from "washington journal," a look at the debate over planned

parenthood after video surfaced. and then the meeting of the national governors association. later, broadband technology and how to make it more accessible and rural communities. health care reporter with "the hill" newspaper. how much planned parenthood does -- money does planned parenthood get from the government every year? guest: about $12 million. they do receive money from other foundations as well. host: where does that 500 million from the federal government go? guest: it goes to services, contraceptive services. it cannot go towards abortion. that is the big hot button issue there.

there have been a lot of cases to make sure that is the case. democrats and supporters of planned parenthood are very quick to talk about the services that planned parenthood does provide. they want to stress that it's -- it does several cancer screening, mammograms. day-to-day women's health. host: how can they prove that that money is not used for abortion procedures? guest: it's very difficult. that's a lot of money. there are hundreds of clinics across the country. but each clinic is instructed not to use these funds for abortion. for as long as that stream of money has existed there have been republicans who say they are not using it correctly or that there is no way to prove that it is not going towards abortions. this is one of the reasons that this issue has never faded from capitol hill. it is very difficult to prove that. host: because of the video, we're going to show you a little bit of that in just a second --

but because of that video that was shot, is that federal funding of planned parenthood in danger? guest: there is a lot of debate on that. there are certainly republicans who want to put it in danger. there are dozens of republicans in both the house and senate now that are pushing to defund planned parenthood of all its federal funding. we could see both on that as early as next week as part of a highway bill. we could see that on the senate appropriations bill this fall. there is definitely going to be a new fight over planned parenthood because of these videos. host: let's watch some of this center for medical progress's video. [video clip] >> if i were to throw a number out, i would say it is probably anywhere from $30 to $100. >> that's per specimen that we

are talking about, right? >> how much difference but it actually make if you know kind of what is expected? >> it makes a huge difference. for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance. most of the other stuff can come out intact. host: sarah ferris, you've seen this video. is this a pr disaster for planned parenthood? guest: it is. these videos are highly damaging regardless of whether they are

highly edited. that is that planned parenthood is saying. they're saying there was more than an hour of the meeting that was condensed into about an eight minute video that purports to show that they are profiting and are haggling for prices over fetal parts. such as liver, heart, lungs. this is something that, while it is very legal to have fetal tissue donations, it is not something that the general public or congress want to talk about. this is something that whenever this comes up, it is going to raise really uncomfortable questions from people who may identify as pro-life pro-choice. this is something that people do not want to talk about. there are videos that show planned parenthood officials buried candidly discussing these graphic procedures. it is not good for planned parenthood. they have tried to respond very strongly. they are putting out a new statement every day saying this

video was deceptively edited. there are pieces missing from the conversation. but you see one of planned parenthood's top official here discussing their gravity indeed -- in detail, over a lunch meeting. many of us see it as a disturbing conversation. host: is it legal to sell -- you talk about fetal tissue, to sell body parts in a sense? can they sell them at whatever the market will bear? guest: it is not legal to do what the group is alleging, which is that planned parenthood is profiting from fetal tissue donations. this video is a meeting between the planned parenthood official and actors who are posing as a medical research buyers. they are saying, how much would it cost us to obtain these fetal tissue parts.

she is answering at the cost of the procedure, what with the reimbursement the, which is then taken to be how much would -- should we pay you for these? if that was the case, that there was a transfer of money, that would be against the public health service act. that is where the investigations are focusing right now. is planned parenthood profiting from the transfer of fetal tissue which is legal, except any organization doing it is not allowed to make a profit. host: here is the founder of from her head, -- planned parenthood, one of her responses. http://twitter.com/cspanwj[video clip]

>> recently, a group that opposes legal abortions released a video that makes accusations that are not true. over our 100 year history we have continually engaged leading medical experts to shape our practice, policy, and high standards. our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. in this video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. this is unacceptable, and i personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements. who was that staff member -- host: who was that staff member? guest: her name is sarah new controller. she is licensed to perform abortions. she has been reprimanded. she has not gone into details

about what that means, but from what we can see she remains in her position that she has definitely been at the target of a lot of the firestorm. host: that video was shot in a way? -- in l.a.? guest: it was. host: who is the center for medical progress? guest: that is actually a name that a lot of people know. although david is only 26, he hasn't been involved in a lot of controversies involving planned parenthood. back in 2011 he was involved in another video. he has worked for a long time to advance this caused which is to defund land parenthood. it is to expose what they see as wrongdoing, which again planned parenthood denies. he has been -- he is featured

in the first video. we can't see his face but he is one of the people in the meeting. he says he has thousands more hours of footage. host: did i say his name right? dalieden? guest: i believe so. host: smitty in atlanta, on our republican line, is our first call. caller: c-span, i am a little bit ashamed of you because you have not done your homework. there are now two videos out not one. and it shows the same callousness to life as the first one did. this one says that planned parenthood does mammograms. planned parenthood was shown years ago not to do any mammograms. their main industry is

abortions. now all of a sudden they had to admit that they get fetal tissues, they get hearts they get livers, they get lungs. anything else that you would find. this one woman that you are sitting -- seeing in the video she is sitting there callously talking about killing infants in the whim. -- in the womb. because they are infants in the womb. this is what you saw in it nazi germany. they had people they thought were not worth keeping around. we have had abortions in this country of what are viable babies in the womb. these are babies in the whim. host: are you active in the antiabortion movement? caller: i've been active to the point of donating a fair amount

of money to organizations that are not antiabortion, they are pro-life. they left the call them anti-abortion. they are pro-life. they don't want to kill these babies in the womb. these people at planned parenthood have no problem with killing infants. they have no problem killing babies just days before they are supposed to be born. it's alive, viable baby when they crush the skull and suck the brains out. whatever these pastors do. excuse my language. host: sarah ferris? guest: as the color point out, there are two videos now. this is really damaging for planned parenthood's reputation. if you are watching this and you

are following the claims from these groups, again it shows high-level planned parenthood officials discussing the cost. she jokingly refers to, you know, i'd like a lamborghini. these things are very damaging to planned parenthood's reputation. it has prompted another set of apologies from planned parenthood. host: i think i read yesterday that planned parenthood does 300,000 or more abortions and year about one third of all the abortions in the u.s.. guest: that's a number that i would need to look into a little bit more. there are so many statistics going around, depending on what you are looking at. this is a very difficult issue to track, and the government

data is not readily available. host: has there been any bill introduced, any action in congress at this point has of these videos? guest: there has been a bill read -- reintroduced by diane blackwell, a republican from tennessee. she has been one of the leaders of the congressional pro-life caucus. she introduced her bill on tuesday. it now has a companion bill in the senate from a republican from oklahoma. they are working together to get a vote as soon as possible on this bill, which would impose an immediate more -- for a tory and on planned parenthood for one year. they are hoping the federal government will investigate. the future for those bells is not exec the clear however because speaker boehner said yesterday he wants to see a full investigation before pursuing. it's not clear trajectory. host: from brass creaks,

michigan, a democrat. thanks for holding on. caller: i've got two quick questions. one, do you have any more information on the organization that did this year? are they registered as a nonprofit? how many employees today have? when with a founded? where do they get their money? is this just like a guy doing videos? the other thing is, is there any crime or any violation? she was talking i thought in general terms about organ donation and the possible had you say, -- how do you say coverage of cost for shipping. but is there any alleged crime? is there any crime that has been committed? is there any evidence or crime? host: thank you ralph. guest: there is not that much

information publicly available about the center for medical progress, which is the group behind these videos. they have several prominent antiabortion activists including david delayed in -- deleiden who is again at the one asking questions in a hidden camera meeting. they are registered as a nonprofit in california, and they have been name called by democrat from california and across the country to investigate that status. that would again, make them tax-exempt in that state. as for the other question, whether there is an alleged crime by planned parenthood republicans and antiabortion activists who watch these videos say that there is enough evidence to show that planned parenthood is making money from fetal tissue donation. but again, planned parenthood and its defenders have come out and said these are selectively

edited videos and the money that they are talking about is just compensation for the procedures that would then go to benefit medical research. planned parenthood president seceded -- cecile richards have said it is a life-saving procedure. she says the women who opt to donate feel tissue from their abortion donate to a life-saving issue. the evidence, it's a murky situation. there are planned parenthood officials reportedly saying these things, again the videos have been edited. you can see the full hour plus footage online, and you can see that they are edited. the department of justice has said that it will investigate all information that is available. it is unclear whether that will lead to a full investigation. host: have you watch the full video, sarah ferris? guest: i have watched a good

amount of the hour-long video of the center for medical progress put out in a response to planned parenthood. they came out and said this has been deceptively edited. it we want you to release the full footage. within a day that was out there. host: does it change the tenor of the video when you watch the full video? guest: it does. there is important context that is left out of the video. you can hear the officials saying, we are not profiting from this. this is not going to be, they are not talking about leftover funds going to benefit the organization. for the second video, the one released on tuesday, one of the actors from -- posing as medical buyers, actually offers $1600 for a fetal part. the organization turned it down and says that is an unprecedented number. that is an important detail.

they are not jumping at the opportunities to take this exorbitant amount of money to receive this fetal tissue. host: what is the current federal law when it comes to using federal funds for abortion services? guest: federal funds cannot be used for abortion services at all. that is stipulated under the hide amendment which is attached to the budget process every year and has been for decades. republicans and democrats have always argued about this. democrats say that as republicans are continually trying to apply the hyde amendment to more situations. we have seen some important legislation on the hill recently. if you're ever earlier, in january, the senate attempted to pass a humid -- and anti-human

trafficking bill. the indications for the hide -- hyde amendment was very significant. these are decade old issues. these planned parenthood videos are really threatening to bring that back into the spotlight. host: these issues were raised by both speaker boehner and his democratic leader pelosi at their weekly news conference of yesterday. [video clip] >> i've seen these two videos. they are gruesome and i think they are awful. that is why they are doing an investigation. i expect that we will have hearings, and the more we

>> let's have an investigation of those people trying to snare planned parenthood. look at the disparity which some of our members have. between the actual film and the edited version that people have put out. sarah ferris? guest: i think that both of these briefings yesterday -- attended both of these briefings yesterday. it is very clear, especially from speaker pelosi's remark that she is intending to bring politics into his issue. it is very damaging for democrats to talk about these issues.

regardless of how they are edited. leader pelosi is very clearly bringing this right back to the repeated attacks by republicans against planned parenthood. she is saying later on in everything, she says her publicans would rather defund the government then plan -- fund planned parenthood. she says their are manufacturing a crisis but she says does not exist. she is very clearly trying to paint the issue as a political issue, not as people who have been -- who say at the human rights issue. she is trying to turn it back to the abortion debate. host: mark from st. paul, minnesota. on our independent line. caller: thank you for your time. the first thing i would like to talk about is dr. mary gather -- gatter who was the person on the second video. who is she, i would like to

know? she refers directly to planned parenthood knowing about what is going on. i may have been taking it out of context. also i have not seen the full, unedited video. also, i think we definitely need to go into heavy probes instead of just saying let's defund them out right. we need an exhaustive investigation in my opinion. also ms. pelosi seems very dismissive in that last video. i think it would be a bad thing not to look at every single person involved, both sides. i would just like to hear your thoughts on the matter. thank you very much. guest: so to address your first question, dr. mary gatter is a high-ranking planned parenthood official. i don't know her exact title but as you can see she is taking meetings with medical buyers to

discuss fetal tissue. obviously she is high up in the organization and is facing a lot offla flak right now for her comments. just as the first video, they are disturbingly candid for a lunch conversation. going after the issue of investigations, there are two right now in the house. the house commerce committee has already opened an investigation. they are asking to bring these planned parenthood officials to testify, or to at least have briefings with their staff. right now planned parenthood has said it will not offer those employees to come to congress. they are offering other officials from the organization to meet with staffers on the hill, but those investigations are ongoing. there are even more calls for the federal government to do an investigation. we just heard nancy pelosi asking for the department of justice to investigate the center for medical progress.

there has been, at this point, more than 100 republicans were calling for an investigation also by the doj, but into planned parenthood. again we are not there yet if that will be a full investigation, but they are reviewing the information. if you listen to leader pelosi's remarks, she does defend planned parenthood. she does dismiss these claims. she brings up the quality of the videos, the editing of the videos, and says that they have been very selectively edited. she interviewed points from planned parenthood. as her staff and many others on the hill have likely been briefed by planned parenthood. a lot of their offices have been in touch with the groups. host: francis is calling it from munro, new york, on our republican line. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i have a couple of questions but my main concern is now that obamacare has been forced down our throats and we are paying

for all these health services anyway why are our tax dollars also going to a private organization who consider and say we want to crush a child so i can get a lamborghini? the second woman in the first case is sitting there, sitting -- sipping her chardonnay and eating her salad saying that she likes the fact that she can now wait until they are 17 weeks old so she can get the body parts. with all the medical research that has gone on, the sonograms now show that the fingers are there, they are rubbing their nose. their heart is beating. this is what they want our tax dollars to go for. i just don't understand how callous they can be. then to turn it around and say it it was felt by filmmakers. whether they added