Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  October 24, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
that they obviously go after and the terrorists who attacked their neighbors. if they think they can be safe from a threat from that kind of terrorist, i think they are wrong but they will have to make that judgment themselves. >> there is time for two more questions. the gentle man in the second row. today's event has been on the record. >> mike costa, recent retiree. >> we miss you. >> very nice to see you. >> this must be a sign of the times. not a single question on iraq. the ultimate numbers next year will probably be diminished from the numbers that some had anticipated. is there anything you can tell us about how that negotiation is going now?
12:01 pm
in the best guess on to win the defense authorization bill will be on the floor? >> the first answer is easier than the second. [laughter] amazing to be able to say that a question about iraq is an easier question to handle then the defense authorization bill. that is the situation in the u.s. senate. in terms of a iraq, apparently the discussions continue. i think we should make a clear that there is a finite point where we have to say, ok, this is not going to work and we are going to pull our forces out including the trainers that we are willing to keep their,
12:02 pm
providing that we can protect them from being covered by -- been prosecuted under an iraqi law. we will not allow our troops to be put in that situation. that is the sticking point apparently. i do not think it is a good idea for us to be pleading with iraq to ask us for troops to stay. we have been in the position -- it looks as though that we are hoping that they are going to be making this request and we are hoping that certain elements of their political world will join in the government requests. will some of the shi'ite groups join in on the requests. we should not be pleading them to ask us. i do not like to be in that position. providing we are not in combat, that we are there for training purposes for a limited number of troops.
12:03 pm
we ought to give them a clear deadline on its. i am glad that we are pulling out almost all of our troops. by the way, for my republican friends who criticized president obama for setting deadlines in afghanistan which he was wise to do for the reasons i mentioned, this deadline in iraq was a president bush deadline for the record. i did not want to end on a partisan note. the second question, the sticking point is if there is language in that bill relative to the handling of detainees as to whether their detention will be by the military or civilian authorities. whether or not federal courts are going to be available for the trials of terrorist it.
12:04 pm
last night, we defeated an effort that was almost totally partisan to deny prosecutors the use of federal courts for terrorist it. we defeated that effort. two republicans joined to say that we ought to be able to use our federal courts to try terrorists. that issue was resolved last night. but the issue that is holding up the defense authorization bill is not a matter whether federal courts will be available for the trial of terrorists. the issue that is holding up the bill is who will detained and whether or not terrorists must be detained by the military or whether or not civilians can continue as they have in the past to detain terrorists and to interrogate terrorists.
12:05 pm
we worked out a compromise that i will not go into which i thought was a fair compromise which has language in there that the administration does not like which sets categories of affairs of what the al-qaeda and people affiliated with al-qaeda must go through the military detention system. they do not like that. they wrote in a waiver so they can waive that. the administration is apparently not satisfied with that weaver and that think has mischaracterized it. i know there is a reporter in the room that wrote a story
12:06 pm
today or last night where the administration has inaccurately characterized our bipartisan language in our bill which contains that flavor for the president contending that language that he does not like and that is the holdup. the majority leader indicated to the white house that he is going to try to get that language out of the bill. that is the dilemma that we are now in. you ought to have a question that we can end on a positive note. >> policy template for removing nasty dictatorship. a lot to discuss in a short amount of time. thank you very much, senator levin. [applause] and indulging my many questions. i am pleased to announce next wednesday, october 26, a conversation with the, don general u.s. marine corps. thank you very much for coming.
12:07 pm
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we will be live here on c- span at 1:00 eastern today as the creator of talks about the changing landscape of entertainment news. he will be responding to reporters' questions at the national press club at 1:00 eastern. the u.s. house and gavels in at 2:00 and legislative work will start at 4:00. it will consider borrowing -- barring european rules on
12:08 pm
airplane emissions. later, repealing government payments to government contractors. also, the cell -- house armed services committee will hold a hearing on the current state of the armed services -- on the defense industrial base. that will be on c-span3. >> although the headline proved false, "do a defeats truman" was iconic. this week on "the contenders" follow a dominant force in new york politics who influenced national politics in the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. that's friday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> the native secretary-general announced october 31st would be the beginning to end of -- the
12:09 pm
nato secretary general announce october 31st would be end of operations and libya. this is about 30 minutes. >> we have just been joined by lt. charles bouchard, the lieutenant of operations and unified protector. he has joined us to give a preliminary assessment of our nato-led mission to libya and the details of the current overwatch. let me say a few words before give the floor to the general. unfortunately, the terrible earthquake in turkey, the death toll is rising.
12:10 pm
the secretary-general issued a statement expressing his sadness. on behalf of nato, he expressed his sympathy and solidarity to those who were and continue to be affected by the earthquake, to the turkish people, and the turkish government. nato sounds ready to assist our allies if needed. all i differ know, yesterday, we will all have seen this celebrations across libya as the national transitional council declares the fall liberation of libya. a momentous day for libyans and for the whole region. as i am sure you heard, the national transitional council singled out nato for what he called the effectiveness and great professionalism with which we implemented the united nations security council resolution 1973 to protect civilians in libya against the threat of attack. the secretary general warmly welcomes the announcement of
12:11 pm
liberation as a great victory for the people of libya. their courage and determination has inspired the world. as they embark on a challenging journey from dictatorship to democracy, the secretary general calls on all libyans to put aside their differences and build a new, and occlusive libya based on reconciliation and full respect for human rights and the role of law. our nato-led operation to protect the people of libya under the historic mandate of the un is very close to completion. the north atlantic council took a preliminary decision to end operation unified protector on october 31st and will take a formal decision in the next few days. meanwhile, the secretary-general is closely consulting with the united nations and the national transitional council. as we wind down the operation together with our partners, we will monitor the situation, retain the capacity to respond to threats to civilians if
12:12 pm
needed. general, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. as we end the nation -- as we end the mission, unified protector, it's important to put things in perspective and provide a review of how we saw these last seven months. we look back to march, the onset of the mission, gross systematic violations of human rights, the repression of peaceful demonstrators, arbitrary defend -- arbitrary detentions, forced detention, torture and in some instances, executions. we have seen over and over again at the remnants and remains of such actions. the reaction was so strong that the international community, led by the united nations
12:13 pm
resolution 1970 and 1973 authorized member states to take the necessary measures to protect the civilians under threat of attack and implement an arms embargo from the air and at sea. the nato response was rapid, six days from the time or given the order to take on a mission to the time we began operation. this could not have been done up a great work of the air and maritime components as well as other participating organizations. the official concept was a simple one -- protecting the civilian population from the gaddafi forces. and in doing so, ensuring no civilian casualties. we did that through very careful targeting processes and precision munitions and courageous restraints by
12:14 pm
everybody to ensure only when we had a clear shot we take it. it showed the professionalism of the air crew and men and women at sea. we focus on stopping to direct and indirect attacks against the population and removing the capabilities of field and military concentrations, logistics' and ammunition facilities, and command and control methods. throughout, we stayed focused on the mandate to protect the population to ensure and conduct the embargo. we did not get involved anything beyond what was our legal mandate and we remained well within the mandate assigned to us by the north atlantic council. the no-fly zone was a balance between deterrent and actions. we insured non lethal flight
12:15 pm
activities remain unimpeded and insured humanitarian assistance flow would continue. from an embargo perspective, we interdicted maritime shipping to ensure only approved and authorized aid and essential commodities would continue. never once did we impede or stop the movement or flow of humanitarian assistance, but rather our maritime component ensured the communication was still open and would remain able to ensure humanitarian assistance would flow into the country. in general, the conduct of the mission, in april, the situation was dire and the mission was to stop the movement of forces. benghazi was stable.
12:16 pm
gadhafi's regime forces moved back to the area of brega and we made sure the situation would not worsen. likewise, we major attacks against civilians were stopped. in may and june, we started stabilization where gaddafi was no longer able to advance, thus our first objective had been met. then, we witnessed essentially the anti-gadhafi forces come together and we watched them from the air and at sea come together and show some signs of movement forward. in july, one that could up the
12:17 pm
forces were pushed and the daily shelling stopped. tripoli was freed. it took surprisingly very few days. but we still saw toward the end aggressive scud launches and continued inflammatory speeches from gaddafi to promise to fight. in september, the remaining pockets of resistance were taken and finally, toward the end of september and early october, sirte was freed. essentially today, all areas have been freed and the coastal areas of libya are under the control of the mtc. the threat of organized attacks from gadhafi regime remnants is
12:18 pm
essentially gone. at this time, there are no come may -- no remaining command-and- control capabilities which would lead to the return of the regime. finally, libya has been declared liberated by the mtc leadership. from our perspective, the objectives assigned to unified protector have been met. in the end of, it is a success for nato, but more important, it is the ability in victory. this has been a team effort and i extend my appreciation to the 28 nations who took part, the three arab partners and our scandinavian partner as well. all played a role in this mission, whether contributing assets directly involved to
12:19 pm
supporting, to providing basing, or provide nato personnel. i mention basing and i want to especially thank our host nations of italy, who provided the strategic bases, and also greece. thank you to those two nations. finally, would like to thank the nato leadership for trusting us to get on with this multinational command. unified protector was launched to protect the civilian population. many nations joined together and provided personnel, assets and a clear directive to get on with it. i believe we were able to make a difference in the lives of libyans and as i stated in my first news conference, we shape an environment where the people of libya can't decide for themselves their future.
12:20 pm
this completes my formal portion of this conference. thank you very much. >> if there are any questions in english or french -- >> i'm from the associated press. you are aware of the controversy surrounding the exact circumstances of gaddafi's death. we have been told nato planes struck the convoy in which she was fleeing twice and the reason for that was because it presented a threat to civilians. could you explain the exact threat the convoy was posing? when we saw the vehicles, they did not seem to be armed, they
12:21 pm
were not carrying anti-aircraft guns or anything like that. what was the exact nature of the threat the vehicles would have posed? >> let me make it perfectly clear that we saw a convoy and we had no idea gaddafi was on board. in fact, i was surprised he was in that area that late in the conflict. second, the preparation started with 175 vehicles being lined up and ready to go. they started to make their way out and one of the potential outcomes of this was concerned that forces from searched would join up with the other remnants -- forces from sirte would join
12:22 pm
up with other remnants and we would see parts of the civilian population held hostage. this was our judgment. we went on from there to attempt to break down the convoy into manageable chunks and slow down. that is what we did. we put our weapons systems on the convoy twice with the aim of stopping the convoy and slowing it down. there were rockets and machine guns on some of the pickup trucks and it was, in our assessment, a clear threat to the population. >> i am from the kuwait news agency. how significant, how decisive was the contribution of the arab countries in achieving this victory? thank you.
12:23 pm
>> thank you very much for question period the contribution of every nation was critical to the success. the arab countries help us understand the culture, they helped us understand what was going on on the ground. they provided assistance in plants and targeting and in various other affects, be it air patrolling or provision or bombing missions in that area. but the best advice was the knowledge of the culture and their advice to me as to how to continue with this mission and how to interpret what we saw on the ground. most helpful. but all of the 28 nations all played a role together. this is what makes this mission a success is the fact that all of the nation's came together with their partners, with one goal in mind. one question dealing with the
12:24 pm
threats to people -- you said the gadhafi forces had no command-and-control capabilities right now. is there any chance there could be some pockets of resistance in the country? if nato is planning to leave on the first of november, [unintelligible] >> that's a very good question.
12:25 pm
thank you very much. this goes back to our mission, protection of the civilian population. our assessment is the threat of organized attacks against the population has diminished, has stopped. this is a very large country, 1,300 kilometers frontage. it is likely there will be individuals up there, but we are considering the threat such that it can be handled by mtc forces. our assessment is that is so. libya is now liberated. we're also witnessing police force is being created, the graduation of the first course of recruits for the army, the command-and-control structure is in existence and we are seeing
12:26 pm
their able to deal with these problems. the combination of our assessment that these problems can be dealt with and the mtc has the capability to do so, leads us to do reflection that it is time to terminate the mission. >> we can go to naples if we have any questions there. if not, we have quite a few others in brussels. >> thank you. in the past, nato has been criticized as a two-tier organization or only certain member states have done the so- called heavy lifting what comes to combat. do you see the operation in libya as confirming that perception or has this changed the internal dynamics in reference to the states to have
12:27 pm
taken the lead, so to speak, or is there still an imbalance with the nato member states in terms of what they can and will do in operations? >> i will limit my observation to our mission, operation unified protector. the first analysis is everyone played a role. some people provided kinetic activity, bombing, others provided ships, and others helped in assistance either being on staff and others made some action that on other fronts and other theaters which enabled the freeing of individuals for the mission itself. to me, everybody played a role. second, when we look at nato, we should not look at nato for several months, we should look at nato for the last 20 years
12:28 pm
and the next 20 years. what we see is that the capabilities continue to improve and each nation has the sovereign right to decide how much the will bring to the alliance. from my perspective, i saw all nations played a role, albeit at different levels. but then again, others played a more important role in other theaters. it is balancing and looking at all spectrum of nato for a long period time, not just for seven months. >> good morning. i'm from the associated press. you and the secretary general which aid -- which a peaceful coexistence to the people of libya. but according to your information, what are the risks of tribal war in libya after the end of this part of the conflict and which are there risks of the weapons left by
12:29 pm
gaddafi loyalists could fall into the hands of terrorists or get out of control? >> for small, with regards to the internal relationship -- first of all, with regards to the interrelationships, this question could be best answer by the mtc. what was clear in the announcement by mr. jalil yesterday is that one libya is what they want, a unified libya. we have seen them unify under the goal of seeking their freedom and i am confident they will be able to find their way as well to find a unified libya and develop themselves and find their way. obviously, there will be challenges along the way, but it is a workable outcome. second, with regard to weapons, there are a great deal of weapons out there. i'm confident very few of those
12:30 pm
weapons, if any left by sea or air which was our mission, with regard to movements on the ground, there are over 3,000 kilometers of border along this country which borders on nations that are not necessarily most supportive of reducing the moment -- the movement of illegal weapons. there will be challenges in the future and here again, we count on the mtc to establish a secure border to minimize the movement. regrettably, from our perspective, we continue to ensure no such weapons are moved from the air and at sea, but the situation on the ground will remain a national responsibility for the mtc to take the action required to stop it.
12:31 pm
>> the belgian news agency. >> [speaking french] >> [speaking french]
12:32 pm
>> [speaking french]
12:33 pm
>> he is discussing about this with the un -- is it possible it will be later and considering the problems you mentioned, is it possible some native troops will stay on the ground were any countries suggesting to stay any longer? >> as i said and as you know, the north atlantic council took a preliminary decision regarding the operation unified protector.
12:34 pm
the decision is that it should and october 31st. the formal decision remains to be taken. that is a political decision and i will not prejudge that decision. clearly a very complex operation such as unified protector which has three different mandates enforcing the no-fly zone, the arms embargo, and the protection of civilians can not be turned on and off like a switch. this takes some time. there is no intention to keep armed forces in the neighborhood of libya after the end of operations, which the north atlantic's council has decided, in a preliminary fashion, that
12:35 pm
it should end on the 31st of october. >> general, i don't know if you want to add to that. >> i could not have said it better myself. we work under the direction of the north atlantic council and i await their direction this week. thank you. >> there are some comments now saying libya to be the next somalia. what do you think about that? >> i disagree. the infrastructure is still in place. the country has the capability to bring back revenues. there is a great deal of potential in that country beyond oil. we have people who want peace and prosperity and stability.
12:36 pm
with all of these combined together, i don't think the comparison of libya to somalia is inappropriate, and at this time. -- i don't think the comparison of libya to somalia is appropriate at this time. >> i think these are all the questions we have from brussels. i don't know if there are any more questions in naples. >> i think this completes it everyone. thank you very much for giving us some time and thank you for your support. once again, at the end of the day, this was 28 nations, for partners, who got involved to fill and complete the task and wishes of the north atlantic council.
12:37 pm
we have met those objectives and the people of libya have benefited from it. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, general and thank you to your dedicated and hard-working team for getting at the job done. it is not entirely dem, but we're almost there. thank you very much indeed. >> pictures from the white house earlier today as president obama prepares to aboard marine one heading out of town for a number of business and campaign events out west. the president will head to las vegas today and talked about efforts to revive the housing market. we will carry his remarks this evening at a private residence starting at 5:30 eastern on c- span2. he will also go to california tomorrow and had to colorado on wednesday.
12:38 pm
>> a reminder we will be live here on a c-span at 1:00 as the creator of tmz talks about the changing world of entertainment news. the starting at 1:00 eastern. the u.s. house gavels in at 2:00 but legislative work gets underway at 4:00. legislators will consider
12:39 pm
barring european rules on airplane emissions. later, repealing government payments to government contractors. later, the assault -- a house armed services committee will hold a hearing on the defense industrial base. they'll hear from thinktank analyst. live coverage of that on c- span3. >> our review which we issued last week identified weaknesses existed in key security controls at each of the major departments. >> personal unclassified data stored by the government is at high risk of cyber attacks. find out more with the gao head of security issues tonight on "the communicator's" at 8:00 on c-span2.
12:40 pm
we will go live in about 20 minutes to hear about the changing landscape of attainment is with the creator of tmz.com. greg crawford talked about whether candid messenger banking in different with voters. guest: this is part of an overall strategy. he proposed a big bill he knew they would not pass. now they're breaking it up into little pieces that he knows they
12:41 pm
will not pass. is a self flagellation routine. he keeps bringing these things to the floor of the senate and seeing them fail. but the strategy is to portray republicans as not doing anything and to be against jobs. now this economic drive is the next phase in his strategy, which is to come out with incremental executive orders, different things he can do without congress to show he is waking up every day worry about jobs. there will be incremental things, but they will mean something -- gives students a break on paying back student loans, help homeowners refinance and get veterans jobs from returning troops. it will be a lot of incremental things, and they will drag out bit by bit. the president is doing something within his own power and
12:42 pm
republicans are not. host: and the new mantra is "we can't wait." what to expect to hear from the gop? guest: the two sides are so entranced and they're talking points its like a broken record. the republican response is raising taxes is the way to go. cut taxes, cut regulations. i was listening to your callers earlier and it's an absolute mirror of the split between republicans and democrats elected officials as with your callers. you look at the polling and gallup did a pretty comprehensive study showing the country is plainly divided on the question of government role in creating jobs and it split down partisan lines. the same number of americans say the government plays a role to create jobs, and for structure
12:43 pm
spending and things like that. republicans say it's not the government's job, it's about cutting taxes and freeing business to hire people. host: republicans are saying the white house is scared and the president is desperate. what is your sense with the election of a year from now? guest: i wish this was really about jobs, but i don't think it is. what we've got because of the split electric and huge divide between republicans and democrats is there tactically working on their politics with this issue and not the issue itself. on president obama's site, to keep throwing the millionaire tacks in their. each of these proposals to try to get money for police officers and firemen last week, the upcoming infrastructure bill and they put this poison pill in
12:44 pm
those things. the tax increase on people who make over a million dollars -- they know every republican in the senate is going to vote against that every single time. it's almost like they're designing these votes to lose because they think they went in a long run because it shows republicans are not doing anything. host: the phone numbers of are on the bottom of the screen for craig crawford. he was the main guy from the orlando sentinel here in washington. guest: the only guy for a while. host: we are talking up the president's reelection strategy. we will bring republicans into the game here. if you go to our guests website, you'll see is post from the other day. the headline says "iraq, not obama, keeps his problems --
12:45 pm
keeps his promise. guest: the sub story is that the only reason this happened is because the administration could not work out a deal with iraq on immunity for troops. they had actually been negotiating to extend the timetable, so it was clear even the administration people were making it clear reading between the lines that they did not want to bring all of these troops, on the timetable. it's not their choice. at the glove the mayor -- i think a lot of the american public can think the iraqi parliament for sending the american troops home. host: what is the upshot of moammar gaddafi being killed? guest: it wasn't much, but there
12:46 pm
was an uptick. the president's biggest problem going into re-election is the last six national reputable polls, average it together, he is around 51% disapproval. all of them but one were over 50%. gallop was at 49%. he's looking at a country that likes impersonally he has had the last two quarters of this worst approval ratings. he got a little bounce over osama bin laden and that did not last. i don't think there's going to be much of a kill bounce down the road on gaddafi unless people think overall the picture in the middle east has gotten better. the best thing that has probably happened with this presidency are the things hillary clinton has been charged of, oddly enough, the arab spring, libya
12:47 pm
and mostly foreign affairs. host: the first fall for -- first call for greg crawford on the democratic line. caller: i want to talk about how the democratic party let the president down during 2010. the tea party got in there and now the president's -- guest: that is exactly what happened. a nail on the head. the obama coalition, younger voters, ethnic voters, new voters who came out during 2008, it was a very different electorate in 2008 that we have seen going back and go -- that we had not seen for a long long time, going back to 1960. in 2010, some of them disappeared and was a big difference in democrats losing a lot of seats in congress. my theory is -- i don't know --
12:48 pm
might theory is a lot of those voters comeback when he is on the ballot. what we have learned is they were not activist enough or interested enough to vote in midterm elections is not involved in. if he can bring about, that's a big tide of voters. host: "usa today" writes about younger voters today -- our reach at campuses and social media. that generation gaps? the president has the highest approval rating at those between 18 and 29 years old and goes down as he gets into the senior ages. the washington times also talk about hispanic voters and how they are standing at a fork in the road. the sub headline is disillusioned with obama but
12:49 pm
wary of the gop on immigration. guest: they ought to be wary with some of the things some of them say. that has been fascinating to watch on the republican side. romney trying so hard not to lean too far to the liberal point of view on immigration for fear of antagonizing that tea party but not so far that in that general alexian he cannot appeal to hispanic voters. a lot of people in the republican party realize this is over -- the business of attacking illegal immigrants or as they keep calling them in the republican base, "illegals." that's not a great way to appeal to them. host: our next call is on the republican line from indiana. caller: thank you.
12:50 pm
i'm in cincinnati. i'm thinking about all the troops coming home, which i have been praying for this day. but i am also extremely worried about a lot of them or winding up in the streets because there is no way either side has enough jobs to place all those poor women and men out there. i know there is not. i'm so worried about that. god knows we all want them home safe and i prayed to god they all got parents or somebody they can go to. i don't want to hear about no more of them troops out in the street without a job. guest: the president is on top of that. he has a couple of proposals out. the first lady recently
12:51 pm
announced a plan was something like 170 something companies committed to hiring 25,000 retiring troops. the president wants a credit, tax credit for employers to hire veterans. they have a lot of things going on. a lot of these things are incremental, but it's all he can do with this republican congress. he hears you and he is trying to do some things. maryland,s hear from an independent scholar. caller: i would like to tell mr. crawford he does not have his act together for the simple reason that mitch mcconnell, he said his main objective, it did not have anything to do it the economy, creating jobs or anything, it had to do with defeating barack obama. that came out of his mouth. guest: i don't disagree with that. he definitely said that. caller: they have been doing a very good job.
12:52 pm
tack with the country, put that on the back burner. but i would like to remind him that our first $trillion -- $one trillion dollar deficit. guest: i remember covering the 1980 campaign when ronald reagan beat jimmy carter. ronald reagan was attacking jimmy carter for is $50 billion deficit. nowadays we would cheer a $50 billion deficit. and then reagan went on to increase it more than anybody. host: let's talk about the president's fund-raising. for 2012, the president has $86.2 million. he has $61.4 million cash on hand. put that in perspective for us. guest: look at some of the things they're doing with that. he transferred about $10 million to the democratic national
12:53 pm
committee. they spent $8 million on television ads pushing this jobs bill. half of everything the dnc spent. it's not clear that it did any good. the jobs bill is still failing. by that score, i would say this money is going to get wasted. what i about presidential campaigns -- everyone gets worse -- weird as transferring money to television stations. that's what it's all about. i personally think the ads should be free, that television stations should be required to some extent run ads so that people without money to get some exposure. that's the only way we're going to run campaigns. host: huge we did this recently about rick perry -- guest: i have seen so many
12:54 pm
candidates cling to that. i don't see it changing. watched steve forbes talk about it endlessly. some presidential campaign -- i forget which year he ran. it's like a mature market in the way. there is a certain niche of voters who love to talk about the flat tax and listen to cabot's talk about it. but when everyone else starts -- listen to candidates talk about it. but when you start to list the deductions and make exceptions, you end up with just as complicated system as before. i think it is just a canard that desperate candidates use and there are a lot more candidates who lost elections talking about the flat tax than what it. host: what do you make of all of the gop debates so far? i love them. they are a riot.
12:55 pm
-- guest: i love them. i do recall this in the past -- they are letting the crowd react. they're not telling the crowd to shut up. like it when journalists moderate the debate, but when they admonish the crowd to be quiet, i hate seeing journalists put in that position. but now they're letting the crowd react and i know some of it got a little kooky and backfired on the republicans. but in general, it energizes the candidates and makes it more interesting to watch. the other thing is you have so many candidates in the republican race to have nothing to lose, so they are not being real careful. i think newt gingrich is running for speaking fees. he's very intelligent, but he's just not guarding his words at all.
12:56 pm
host: back to the other side -- not sure if you had a chance to see the peace today in the "washington post." let's talk about electability. is the president beatable and are the other folks electable? guest: if they don't go crazy -- if they let the t party point of view completely control of their ticket looks like, they're not going to be. they don't like to hear that, but i believe it. democrats, when they get in trouble, has directly, at -- historic way, even if the vote rs are inclined to their direction, they are often able to eke out a victory by scaring people about the republicans --
12:57 pm
it is called the "thelma and louise" strategy. even if people are leaning toward a philosophy of the republicans -- goldwater was probably a great example, when johnson turned him into a nuclear war monger. even though a lot of people liked what goldwater was saying, they were afraid of them. that is what obama is going to try to do it all those millions and millions of dollars we talked about. if the republicans and up with a ticket where it hard to do -- i think mitt romney and mitch daniels as a republican ticket will not excite the tea party such but that will be very difficult ticket for obama to scare people about. host: let's hear from louisiana on the republican line peripatetic caller: -- let's hear from a sleazy and on the republican line.
12:58 pm
caller: would not be who all of our people if we could contact our congressman and have them sponsor a bill that would mandate equal trade with all countries? this bill would create manufacturing and america and create jobs and in that way solve all of these things we're talking about. guest: what do you mean by equal trade as opposed to fair trade? caller: we would have to sell in china the same amount of stuff we by and that they would have to sell the same about and dollar amounts and that because of affect us to bring our jobs back here because they have to start buying from us as we're buying everything from them.
12:59 pm
guest: i don't think we can do that unilaterally, but i get your draft. i have been a little supplies to -- abdel surprised this free trade bill passed recently. -- i have been a little surprised this free pass trade bill passed recently. the labor unions -- that may do more for jobs than anything else, but some people argue it is going to export jobs, so that was a big jobs issue related to the free trade agreement that >> we go live to the national press club now part the levin will be discussing changes in entertainment news. he worked as an entertainment reporter for several years before founding tmz.
1:00 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am mark hamrick with the associated press and i am the 104th president of the national press club. we are committed to the future of the profession with the events like this while working to foster a free press around the world. for more information, we invite you to look at our website,press.org. you can look at the website. on behalf of our members worldwide, like to welcome our speaker as well as all of those attending today. our head table includes guest of
1:01 pm
our speaker as well as working journalists for club members. note that the members of the general public are attending. it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic budget activity when you hear applause. i like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences. you can follow the action followtwitter. aftere are speech concludes, we will have q &a and i will ask as many questions as time permits. let's introduce our head table. i would ask each of you to stand up briefly as a name is announced. noel stj ohn is the court
1:02 pm
matter of our member volunteer photographers at the club. matt small is one of my colleagues at associated press or radio. we know him as the beast. myron bellkind is with the george washington school of media. april ryan is washington bureau chief with american urban radio network. anddy sporkin is a guest of our speaker. melissa charbonneau, this may be her last luncheon here and we are grateful for all the work you have done this year we will skip over the speaker. alicia mundy is a member of the speaker's committee and a co organizer of today's events. jim carratorre is with tmz.com
1:03 pm
richard simon is a reporter with the los angeles times. rick dunham is a former npc president and the president of our national press club journalism institute. garrett graff is editor of the washingtonian magazine. christopher chambers is professor of journalism at georgetown university and an all-around good guy. please give them a round of applause. [applause] those of us who are in the trade now that no good reporter likes to be scooped. we don't like it when we are beaten by an internet site that
1:04 pm
focuses on the grimy entertainment industry. in the summer of 2009, many people were beaten on the story, everybody was, the story about the death of michael jackson. the aftermath of that story continues to unfold in the california courtroom where his doctor is being tried for involuntary manslaughter. stock was celebrity gossip but the michael jackson story have become part of our nation's culture as well as a reflection of it. the success of that venture is prove to americans. our guest figured out a better way to deliver gossip. tmz.com was launched in 2005 and became the number 1 entertainment news said in the world. in 2007, newsweek called it to the breakout blog.
1:05 pm
they call harvey the man who may represent the future of celebrity journalism. they broke stories like the one about mel gibson, the john edwards sex scandal which had huge repercussions throughout politics, and the details of the tiger woods downfall that began with a seemingly minor auto accident ont things accidentmz said the initial public account did not make any sense. they were right [laughter] by the time it was all over, the golf legend was divorced from his wife and many of his sponsors and he is no longer the world's number 1 golfer. these kind of events transcend celebrity gossip. they flow into business and political issues. tmz has grown from a celebrity video-centered website to a live web string program, a tv show that is syndicated daily by fox broadcasting, and a radio
1:06 pm
program on satellite radio. tmz has broken ground in the way that news is packaged with an emphasis on speed. last year, a study by the n.y. times named tmz the 10th most popular news site measured by google news. the website rankings concern says that tmz ranks above cbs news.com. bloomberg dot com, politico, an dnpr. our guest has had an interesting journey. he graduates from the university of chicago law school and was a litigator at a major legal firm in l.a. he was also a working journalist in the trenches and spent more than a decade as an investigative journalist at kcbs in los angeles. he received nine emmy awards for his reporting and was a columnist of the l.a. times and
1:07 pm
radio talk show host. he created and produced " "celebrity " and brought us the people's court. he came today to talk about the tmz empire and why they are so successful and what it means for the future of journalism. the issues we will discuss today could not be more timely. journalism enterprises of all kinds are trying to get a handle on the question of what is the right model and the digital age? our guest speaker appears to have hit on something, to say the least. we have had a number of top- flight journalist guests at our podium this year. tom brokaw will be here if you days. give a warm national press club welcome to mr. harvey levin. [applause] >> i bet tom brokaw will not
1:08 pm
talk about lindsay lohan. [laughter] i will change of what i plan on talking to you about. something happened this morning that was pretty interesting. i spoke to students at george washington university in media. what i noticed was that they looked depressed. they really looked depressed. when they started speaking, i realized that they felt the job market was bleak, their future was uncertain, they did not really have a vision for the future. and they were scared. it really kind of shocked me because it sounded to me like they were learning about
1:09 pm
problems without learning about solutions and not learning about how you can take an industry in trouble and carve out a niche that will make you successful and make the industry more healthy. the olver lake to all of this is they told me, and you always love hearing this, that there was a debate on whether they would invite me there among the professors. they thought tmz covers celebrity journalism and that does not rise to the standard of what you folks should be learning. with all due respect, that does kind of relate to what i wanted to talk to you folks about. i think there was a big disconnect today when i had this little talk with students. what some of the professors were missing and what is so important is that it is not the subject
1:10 pm
matter that is covered that is really important. it is how it is covered. we are a news operation. we use the same skills, the same standards that i used as a working journalist at various news operations. we are extremely aggressive but we figured out a way of doing it where, i think, the operation is relevant to what is going on today. that, to me, is what is important. i don't necessarily want to talk about celebrity news. i want to talk about the delivery system because that is what is important and relevant. i think that the delivery system in media generally right now is stale and i think there's a good chance that a lot of people here will be put out of work if
1:11 pm
the people to run this delivery system don't change it and don't change it quickly. i think it can be changed. that is what i want to spend a little time talking about before we open it up to questions. there have been radical changes in the last three years, really let's talk 10 years, radical changes in technology, consumer taste. i don't think that has been reflected in the media period. if you look at broadcast journalism now, there is a kind of standard way of presenting news which has been going on for four decades where you have an anchor throwing to a reporter who usually repeats part of with the anchor said who then throws to a package that has very predictably some track, some sound, some track, some sound, some track, some sound and then
1:12 pm
the reporter comes back, says goodbye, the anchor says that you and you move on. that is the way it has been done for 40 years. it can be done better. why hasn't it been done better? i think people get so rooted in what they have done when they have some success that they think they need to hold onto the success rather than to the ball with what is going on technologically and the ball was going on in terms of consumer taste. this is an example -- might have is sometimes called a place like to talk about the last thing i saw. when i was getting ready this morning, i was watching cnn where they had a show called "cnn stood in news."
1:13 pm
i said they are trying to attract a younger audience -- student news. they have a guy that was young and he was not wearing a coat. he was wearing a sweater vest. everything else was the same. he looked into the camera and was reading caught in talking about the same stories that everybody else was talking about. in my head, it reminded me of jon-benet ramsey in that it was like dressing up a kid to be something that the news director wants him to be when that is not authentically who he is that is not the way he should have been presented. if you are trying to attract young people, do it in the voice of young people. do it with a different delivery. it was exactly the same thing but the guy was wearing a sweater rather than a coach. it does not cut it. the fact is, young people are
1:14 pm
not interested in traditional media, for the most part anymore. because it does not speak to them. the audience is getting older and older. when young people are not coming and old people are getting older, you know what happens in the end. it is inevitable. when you look at what happens with the dynamics of the audience, the question is -- what are people doing to attract those young people, to regenerate interest in what is important which is the news. when i say the news, it can be politics, it can be city government, it can be celebrity, but what do you do to attract those people? how'd you reinvent yourself? that brings me to newspapers and magazines.
1:15 pm
you look at newspapers and magazines which have had a storied run and have served a useful function but when newspapers started and magazines started, there was no such thing as video. there was no such thing as a photo gallery. technologically, there are so many things that have deep evolves. there are some many ways people can get their news. what is the magic a holding a piece of paper up in the air when you read? what is it that drives professors and others to sing the praises of newspapers still when it is not the future? that sounds harsh but that does not mean that newspapers have to fold. it means they have to reinvent themselves. maybe it will happen on line but not in a way that is being done now in many cases.
1:16 pm
online right now, a newspaper can be on two platforms. they compete with each other. they are not complementary. do you break the story on line or in the newspaper? there are lots of struggles going on within newspaper organizations now on how to do this. at some point, you have to choose. yet, there is something about newspapers, the holy grail, that we have to preserve this. why? why? what is it about paper? it is not even politically correct anymore? what is it about paper that makes us so rooted in the past? what is it that forces people to shut down when they talk about how we evolve? what i have noticed is that
1:17 pm
there has been a resistance to going on to the web because people said it is too fast. they say if you go on to the web there is not enough time to vewt and you will be inaccurate and you'll be in a rush to publish. that is a cop out. to say we will not devolve this way because we are afraid we will be inaccurate is a cop out. the web does not force you to publish before you are ready to publish pretty gives you the technology, the devices to do it when you are ready. you still set the standard. you still decide when to pull the trigger of. it is your decision. the web is unable agreed it does not force you to do what you don't want to do. i always get this -- that the weather is bad because -- cable news has been around 24 hours for three decades so it is not like 24 hours is anything new. there are these devices now that
1:18 pm
let you recreate and recast in a way that can make everybody more relevant, more timely, and i think it has been met with some resistance still. there are stories we publish that we publish in minutes when we get them. and then there are stories that take a lot longer. we published a story today, an interesting story, about nbc that they are secretly trying to get the casey anthony interview and they have a producer that made contact with literary agents trying to score a book deal for casey anthony and trying to get her front and the money. the representation is that if we get a book deal for casey anthony, we will get a one-hour prime-time special on nbc. this producer is quietly shopping this around.
1:19 pm
we had this story -- we got a tip on this story last tuesday. we published it this morning. i wanted to get jose baez on the record because i knew he knew about it and we did not accomplish that until yesterday. it felt like it was worth the wait to make sure we got that. that took six days to get that story and it is important and good. it took six days. and then again, there are things we get that we publish immediately. when michael jackson died, we didn't publish that story until we were 100% sure. and then we waited a little longer still. it does not force you to do what you don't want to do. i think that is just a really important point. i want to mention the mel gibson
1:20 pm
dui story. many people say that this is just covering celebrities. for better or worse, celebrities are important in our culture. people are interested in that. i think the kind of disdain that some people have for covering celebrities reflects a disconnect with a taste of the american public. you may not like it that people are interested, but they are. when you look at what we give people in journalism, to me, it is not the front page of " the new york times." it is more like a magazine. people are interested in all sorts of things. i cover celebrity journalism. my favorite thing to read his books on abraham lincoln. i am not a one-dimensional guy
1:21 pm
and i don't think many people are that one-dimensional that the only like one thing. there is a diet out there where people can be intensely interested in all sorts of things. it serves a function that people want. that is what i care about right now. i am looking at my audience and our business model, i look at what my audience wants, not what i want. i am way older than the targetdemo and that is the reason i like having young people in my office. i listen to them. it is very egalitarian. i cannot pretend to know what they know. it is not thistop down or people at the top of givethese edicts. we have an open office and a bullpen where everybody throws out ideas. i could not possibly tell you about urban music or sports the
1:22 pm
way other people in my office can. we cover all of this. to open yourself up and understand taste is so critical to staying relevant. it is as important as technology and i think people need to open them's of cells up to that more. rather than have disdain for, there has to be exceptions. ultimately, we are in business. we're all in business. if we don't run our business well, we don't survive well. i think there has got to be a balance there. i think there -- i think you have to pay homage to the fact that it is a business. two other things -- we have spent a lot of time working on the web and the television show. to me, this will all change within five years.
1:23 pm
in five years, this will be a radically different business. i don't think the web will look the way it does. i don't think television will look the way it looks. i think there will be a merger of the two. it will have qualities of both but it will look like meter. that is where my head is right now. i think the delivery system has gotten stale generally in traditional media. i want to fall victim to that. my effort is being spent on that land. we are experimenting with something we are calling a tmz lie that we run on the website and radio and it is trying to blend those two elements. it is another example of how everything changes and to stay relevant and to capture an audience and keep an audience and grow an audience. if you get some measure of success, you cannot say how can
1:24 pm
rival the success because everybody in this room has had it. what do you do with it? do you grow it or try to maintain it? i think we are in a technological world where you cannot maintain. you grow or you die. i think that is the reality. what i told the students was that you all look so depressed. rather than looking at this as being hard to get a job, there are people running the studios and networks and magazines and newspapers that are looking for the answers. if you got the sensibility of someone young to attract an audience, they will listen to you. this is an opportunity for you. this is a revolution right now. this is an opportunity to quickly make your mark. don't be depressed. think about a vision for what
1:25 pm
you want to do. don't just plug into what exists. you have to think about that. we have had a measure of success but i am always looking for those people do come and say you are doing is wrong and you could be doing this better. every day i walk into my office, i walk in scared. i am scared every morning when i walk into the office. i have this feeling in my stomach. will we get the right story? will we produce this well enough? what is happening to the business? there are a million questions. i run scared. i do, but i don't run scared looking at others. i run scared myself. that worksw whether for other people. it works for me because it is genuine. can never rest on what we have achieved in terms of audience and what not. i know that if we don't keep
1:26 pm
looking ahead that what i said at the beginning will be about us. i don't want that to happen i am more than happy to take some questions. >> thank you very much. how about a round of applause? [applause] thank you for that inspiring speech. i have to say about the young people -- i could not agree more. i had an opportunity to write about blo on myg recently on the press club website that the young journalists out there and perhaps the ones not so young have a tremendous opportunity in this transition. it is unfortunate that so many people seem to only see the negative. your enterprise has been a beneficiary of the change and there are positive things to mind in this environment. lets talk a little about the entertainment industry and some
1:27 pm
of the special things that you do. we will have a name forq &a and we have some questions passed up from our audience for it in terms of the market that you are serving and i could be defined any number of different ways -- entertainment news is the heart of that -- are we now in a culture where entertainment news is more popular than ever before? how do you assess the market for entertainment news at this point in our history and our culture? >> i think there has been a real interest in it in the last five or six years but for a reason. when you look at traditional media and the way they covered hollywood, the media did not choose stories. the publicist shows stories. the traditional media was always based on getting interviews with stars. publicists were smart enough to say that we can leverage invest. we can dictate what traditional
1:28 pm
media and entertainment does and does not do. they would go to shows, two magazines and say you want so and so, do this story. it did not matter of the story was true or not. they would do the store because they wanted the person. conversely, if the publicist knew that ratio had gotten wind of a story that the publicist did not walk out, the publicist would call and say if you do that story, you will never -- never get any of my clients and it worked. it worked for years and decades. everything was false that was coming out. everybody played the game. nobody broke ranks. if we did anything fundamentally different when we created tmz it was that we decided we would not do any interviews with stars. the reason is because we wanted to change the balance of power.
1:29 pm
we called all the publicists and told them that this game about do this and don't do that, we will not play the game. we will do honest stories. we will be fair. we will be honest. and we will be accurate and we want to work with you but you cannot tell us what to do and what not to do. some jump on board and others did not. it took time. they are all on board now. they realize that they have to change. the store is the last five years have become more authentic. people are saying this is different than managed, phony celebrity stories. when they see the true hollywood, the good and bad, it has become more interesting to them. i think that is why there is the spike in the interest in journalism because it was all a sameh and veryo-hum.
1:30 pm
there was a sense it wasn't real and that has been blown up and i think it is more authentic now. somebody has been sending this morning and it is like in russia when everybody had greagrey clothes the g thenap came in and you have all sorts of different colors. >> there still is a lot of the old way of doing business being done, correct? you see some products out there in new products and is about the next thing from a celebrity will be the best version of that product ever and five days from then, we will never remember that product in >> again. absolutely, it is not like -- what has happened is some of the traditional entertainment media have become schizophrenic. they realize they have to be more real so they will do some
1:31 pm
of those stores and that they will go back to being these supplicants. suddenly, the problem with that is they lose their identity. it is like who are they? they are doing both ends of the spectrum. i think they are losing their brand. >> it occurs to me, why isn't there more transparency in the reporting of entertainment news to the extent that the washington post as an arms but men as well as npr. -- the washington post has an ombudsman as well as npr. just because you get access to the celebrity, you do coverage? the emphasis of the piece is that this product is coming down the pike and the emphasis is entirely on the product when if
1:32 pm
you are going to really write a story, that is probably not with the news is. >> for me, the more interesting stories are what we did today with nbc and casey anthony. it is going to the back door when you cannot go in the front. that, to me, is a lack of transparency and that is an interesting story for me. doing stories about phony things -- i am not interested because i don't think the audience connects to that stuff anymore. i think our people doing those stories but i don't think audience cares. i think they see through it, when they start to see that these are the real stories, the way they are presented are real, they are authentic -- the other stories feel false. they don't matter as much as the organizations that pushed them. >> you talked earlier about how you like a lincoln. do you worry that our culture
1:33 pm
focuses too much on this material overall? it is a great market for you to be serving because you are successful and you are giving the audience what it wants but the worry that in the marketplace sometimes we are missing the big picture? before 9/11, you could not help but watch an hour's worth of coverage about co garyndit on cnn and then things changed that fall. as a nation and as a people, do we sometimes have our eyes on the wrong thing? >> i think we do have our eyes on the wrong thing a lot. i don't think it is limited to celebrity. i think about monica lewinsky. i don't think about her -- [laughter] but my recollection is that all
1:34 pm
three anchors at the time, peter jennings, dan rather, and tom brokaw were in cuba cover pope when the story broke and when they found out what she did to him in the oval office, there on the first jet out of cuba. pap cubanal visit wasthe -- papal visit in cuba was historic. you cannot tell me that this story delmonico wednesday -- monocot story of monaco an lewinsky had any connection. i think everybody is guilty of it. to say it is endemic to celebrity, it is not. >> what kind of stories work best for you? you have been gutted breaking certain kinds of stories.
1:35 pm
what are the stories you really like to have in your space? what will you not touch? could it be a video confrontation or a factoids? >> i like balance. all day long on the website, the tv show is different -- the tv show is a comedic take on hollywood. it serves a different function than the web. we have 13 stores on the homepage of the website and i look all day long as to whether we have balance. i want something important to balance the site and something interesting that grabs people. i want photos, one a video, once in the light, i want something ironic, what that balance on the pace. it is not any one thing i want. i always want a balance. what we try to do is have our
1:36 pm
audience is split evenly between men and women on the tv show and the web which is the. unheard of we try to give people enough that there is a general interest. i think that is was really important to me. it is not any one thing. as for what we won't do -- we reject stories all day long. all day long. we will reject things that we know other people will do. you know the michael vickbon phelpsg story? we had that three months before it broke and it felt wrong to made. felt like he was set up. it felt like circumstances were wrong and i put the picture in my office for three months and i knew it would break. these are the things we won't do. i remember not too long ago, we covered with the courts and we are aggressive in the courts. we got these documents and the
1:37 pm
britney spears case in the conservative ship. there was information in there that was really personal and i think hurtful to her children. i looked at this and the person at the court who we have called me up and told me what she had. i said this is a mistake. they clearly never meant to have this thing public. it should have been sealed. it was just hurtful and it would have heard these kids. -- it would have heard these kids. -- a h it would haveurt these kids. we are aggressive reporters but it felt robert i called up a lawyer and said you could not have meant for this republished and chief redoubt. -- and she freaked out. but judge silda but we have the only copy. the copy we had was legitimate. we never publish did.
1:38 pm
we have debates all belong of what to put on the website and what not to put up and we encourage lots of debates. it is a big bull pen. we want everybody participating. is comingo learn who up. there are young people who could become producers. you want these voices. we debate all day long about what to put up or not. at a point where you become a big operation, many people send you many things and tips. this is a constant thing in the office. i had a number of people ask me in person before we came here >> -- where the ground rules regarding paying 04 content to? talk generally about how the process works? you have a staff of about 100 people which is sparse given the amount of output you have. talk about the staff, the ground rules, a the pay.
1:39 pm
>> i will gladly buy video from anyone in this room who has good video. i have absolutely no problem with that. i have no problem buying photographs. people talk about this and say you pay for the eggs. we pay for videos and photos, absolutely w. hy not? what is the logic behind paying for it or not paying for it to? if i buy a video, it does not change the video. it is objective. the video is the video. if somebody shoots it and i am in a business and someone comes to me and asks if i would like for my business, we want to charge you something, i look at it and there is value, i will buy it. and i will say it is no different -- i'm sure many people worked in local news here -- when there is a fire and a house in the middle of the night for a crash on the freeway -- it
1:40 pm
is stringers out there shooting these things green these stringers' go to new stations in the morning and say we have a video of this crash or fire, do you want to buy it? same thing. it has been going on forever. i have no problem with it. i will absolutely by photos and videos for interviews are different we don't really do interviews but the problem with paying for interviews is it is not objective. when you offer somebody money for an interview, you're basically encouraging them to make this a good story and you are incentivizing the person to shade the truth or lying or make it worth their while. they know they're still our willx worth if they tell the right story or three times x if they embellish. they will go for the money and you don't know they are not telling the truth. that is the problem with paying for interviews.
1:41 pm
what has happened with traditional media is they think they figured out a way of getting around that which is they will not pay for the interview, we will pay joe jackson for a high-school yearbook picture of michael jackson. right. that is the way the got around for a long time. we found out that all the network j courtsose baez to get the case he entered -- casey anthony interview. he was talking about how much money this is war than we did a story about this three months ago. two days after we did this story, abc news said we will no longer pay for photos and video connected to an interview with the thought was interesting. it was that kind of back door way of doing it which i think is the real problem.
1:42 pm
video or anything objective, absolutely. in terms of the staff, it is like any other staff, we have aggressive journalists and we have managers and a lot of my staff has been trained from the ground up. that was never the intention. we thought we would get a mix. it has been more training staff from the ground up. it has worked for us because they have the sensibility very they understand the sensibility of who we are and what the brand is. they need to be managed but we have good managers. >> let's say i am a member of a law enforcement team and i have a fact out there that i think you guys will. like i will say i it will cost you $5,000. >> you can do that. we have numerous law enforcement contacts. i was a reporter for many, many
1:43 pm
years in los angeles and much of this happens in at lel.a.. i developed a lot of sources and police departments, lawyers, judges, all sorts of people. those people did not evaporate. at the same time, i have a step that has been remarkable in that they have a work ethic and have created a ni their ownches or that have found their own sources. myoporum tick -- my operation is very egalitarian. everybody is in the morning meeting. when we did the mel gibson story, the person who found the d about theui was a pa who saw the red lights after mugginess and walked out. if i did not include him in the process, we would not have broken the original story. this is a very egalitarian thing. everybody has doubled to their
1:44 pm
own context. it is a very kevin bacon-like city. we have a lot of sources and they trust us. i tell my staff that that is the difference between success and failure. if people trust you and they think you will be fair, they will come back. if they don't trust you, if you do something that makes them not trust you, it will damage us greatly. trust is the biggest thing. we have lots and lots of those sources. >> briefly, what is the dna of how you broke the michael jackson death? >> i'm trying to think of how much to said. say. part of that was -- we made a phone call the biggest part of the michael jackson story was not when we found that he was dead. that had the biggest splash,
1:45 pm
obviously, but for us in terms of chasing the story, the initial story we had was an ambulance went to his house and he had doctors all the time. we knew that. when he died, that was a huge thing but the biggest story that says it for us, that ms. understand the urgency was that we found out that he was in full cardiac arrest. i will not say how we found that out but we made a certain phone call that anybody could have made. we found out that information. that changed everything. from there, we started working our sources. we knew early on how desperate it was. that was a call at lots and lots of people could have made. it changed everything. >> what is the most ridiculous or hilarious video or picture of
1:46 pm
a celebrity you had published. you could say the when you did not publish false >> of. >> any come to mind? >> everyday things happen. honestly, for me, it is like a bathtub. it is bathtub knowledge. the bathtub fills up with water every day and you pull the plug and fill up again the next day. i can't remember from one to the next. it all blends together. >> let me rephrase the question -- anything that you ran along those lines and regret it? >> this was not a shocking photos. it was just the way we dealt with it. my staff is really created. -- creativity.
1:47 pm
the push the envelope sometimes with non-important stories and sometimes they can become, if they're not man is right, they can become big stories themselves. jennifer love few it had gained some weight and there was a photograph of her that clearly showed that. somebody on my staff who was a clever guy and i will blame this on myself because it did not register. he wrote a story on the debt was two sentences. for those of you who are familiar with her movies, you'll get it and for those who are not familiar, this will be named. that line was"i know what you ate last summer." [laughter] we were severely criticized for that. and rightly so.
1:48 pm
and rightly so and it literally became -- people magazine did a cover story on a wait and general he lovewitt. i regret it. >> you talked earlier about how many people don't get what they need to be doing in the business. what do you see where they get it? what about new or old enterprises doing something new or correct? >> i think people have this sense that the internet is a huge player. it is how to harness it and what to do with it. i read a politico all the time and i think they do a good job. there are others that are doing a good job. "the new york time" has figured out the web better than most. "the la times" is good but there
1:49 pm
are still issues there. i think people are struggling on the internet and i think that is good. they need to figure that out. tv is more problematic. the problem with tv is i don't think people realize how broke in the delivery system is. jim and i were talking last need the you don't middle man as much anymore. that may sound threatening. the notion of anchors and reporters who front the stories -- i'm not sure if that is as compelling as the people who actually get the story. the main outlook is good, perhaps, but i don't think it matters. i think the authenticity of seeing people especially in broadcast media, in seeing people who really owned the stories and have the stories and they don't have to present them with soundtrack but they can
1:50 pm
present them in a different way. when we do our tv show and i'm not using that as the best example, but we never look at the camera. we have real meetings. they are funny but they are real. i don't think they have to be funny either. i think there are ways of presenting things that can be fundamentally different and fresh that can convey the same information may be in a more compelling way or any more current way and a fresher way that may attract an audience that left because they are bored. in some ways, broadcast does not understand the problem as much. >> you have talked publicly about being gay and how difficult it was to keep that a secret until you did not any longer. kenya took about those pressures and how liberating it must've felt now that you can talk openly? what is the environment in the
1:51 pm
industry about viewing an issue like that >> ? i was agoraphobic for a long time. i freaked out when i was on television because i thought this would end my career. i did not leave the house for three years. i literally was panicked when i would go out. it was a panic that was this irrational panic that made no sense. finally one day, i said to myself that i am running my life. -- i am ruining my life. i had a show on the station or was a reporter and i said i was miserable. but did not want to make a declaration but if the news director really hates it, screw
1:52 pm
him. i will do something else. this is ridiculous. you reach a tipping. . there was a tipping point for me and i thought to myself that it. it was just one day. nothing happened. .t was the same perio i build things up in my head and i can create scenarios. i'd create a nuclear war in my head when it is not that at all. it is one of my many flaws. i think i did that with that. that said, there are areas in the country where it is a huge problem still. i think it is a liability in terms of career for people who come out and i think there is still a lack of tolerance.
1:53 pm
i think there is a long way to go. i have been pretty lucky. >> there were all kinds of rumors for a while that tmz was going to have a presence in washington. what ever happened with that? >> it will happen someday. it is my passion. i want to do tmzdc and the only thing stopping us as we have some much going on back in l.a. between the website and the tv show and mobile and tmz live and how we have long staybus ytour which is so much fun. it is so much fun. it is a show and are so many things we are doing. i realize it will require me to be here for awhile. i want to do that and i will do that. the reason i want to do it is because i really believe that so
1:54 pm
much of the media that covers politics is really covering it for inside the beltway. there are millions of people out there who want to be interested in politics and they feel badly that they are not but it is not acceptable and it is boring and too complicated and they cannot find an entry level. i want to make tmzdc a personality-based site. not because it will be the most important material but it will introduce people to politics on a level they can relate to. it will be on a personal level. we did a er this within hsock in a funny sort of way. -- we did this with aaron schock in a funny sort of way. we interviewed him.
1:55 pm
i think the cameraman is --colin here? your the cameraman who did that. his press secretary called me up and said how dare you. i said you will call me up in a few days and apologize. we got this video on cnn and fox news and nbc station in chicago and peoria where he is from and the bottom line to this is we did a series of stories about him that more personality- driven. i went to dinner with him not too long ago and he said before we go, come to my office. we will do a telephone town hall. the easily get 50-100 people prayed he had like 12,000 people on the phone. he will be very open about this. he talks about this and says that tmz did more for me to get people interested in who i am and now i can talk about what i am interested in and it will
1:56 pm
actually listen. i think there is a way of getting a lot of people involved in politics on that personality level and then we will do other things. that is what i want to do and we will eventually do a >> it. can you give us a timeline [laughter] ? >> i could die first. i don't know. there is a lot of pressure right now with all the things going on in el la. if you try to do too much, things can fall apart. >> what about next year? [laughter] >> we will do politics next year, just don't know we will be able to do tmzdc as a formal site. >> if you can stand by, i will make some last announcements and we will get to the last question and a little presentation. we're almost out of time and we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i want to remind you about some of coming speakers.
1:57 pm
the first is october 31, herman cain will be in the ballroom. tom brokaw will be here to talk about the political scene as well as the new book he has out. we will have the u.s. postmaster general here to talk about the troubles affecting his organization and the solutions they would like to try to enact. harvey, we always give a parting gift and believe it or not, the gift will give you today is the first of its kind we are aware of the branding you have when your tv show. typically, we give a coffee mug but we are aware that you don't use a coffee mug. it is a national press club travel mug. >> i will use this on the show [applause] we think it would be a great launching point for your next d.c.-based publication or a website. >> thank you. >> we are glad to have you here today. it has been an interesting
1:58 pm
question and per answeriod as well as your speech. we'll ask a final question -- is there one particular celebrity from the past that you would have liked to have covered or gotten to know yourself? either currently alive or from the past? >> yes, the person that i wish i would have gotten to know and the person i wish i could have done something with on the website was steve jobs. i think steve jobs may be the most influential person in our. lifetime he blows me away. i cannot believe the. is vision -- he is an historic figure. what he did was he changed everything about our world as profoundly as the airplane did. he changed everything about our
1:59 pm
world. it was not just one thing that he did. he did thing after thing after thing. i have never read about anybody or seen anything with anybody with that kind of vision and our lifetime. i think he was a remarkable -- i cannot wait for this book. to come >> out. thank you very much, how about a round of applause? [applause] thank you. i would like to thank our national press club staff including our library and broadcast center organizing today's event and if you want more information or you feel like a copy of the program, please check out our website,ww.press.org and we are adjourning. [captioning performed by [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
2:00 pm
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the u.s. house is about to gavel in. members will do preliminary -- until -- before recessing at 4:00 p.m. eastern the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 24, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable adrian smith to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend gonzalez, st. joseph catholic church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: dear, lord god of history and our father, you have anounted this great nation
2:01 pm
to be the promoter of freedom, justice and the common good. you inspired our founding fathers of the inception of our republic to recognize that mankind is endowed with self-evident and unalienable rights would reflect our unique status created in your image and likeness. we beseach you today and ask you to pour out your holy spirit upon the republic and this house of representatives so that all the liberations and decisions of this governing body may be in conformity with our great call to defend these transcendent rights and thereby help build a civilization of authentic love, justice and peace. we ask us in your most holy and eternal name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.
2:02 pm
pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley. mr. mckinley: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, recently the civil club in wheeling, west virginia, hosted a forum on employing individuals with disabilities. with more than 50 million
2:03 pm
americans living with disabilities, i applaud the efforts of the wheeling club for recognizing the importance of providing individuals with disabilities the tools necessary to be successful. president ronald reagan called for people to provide understanding and encouragement and opportunities to help persons with disabilities lead productive and fulfilling lives. as an individual with a significant hearing impairment and a grandfather with a child of special needs, i am very familiar with the hardships of overcoming the obstacles of disabilities. disabilities have no boundaries. they cut across the lines of racial, ethnic, educational, social and economic backgrounds. and can occur in any family. i encourage us all to learn about the people in our community who have disabilities and to recognize that all of us have talents and abilities can
2:04 pm
make this a better place in which to live. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, last week secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, announced despite her department's best efforts what is known as the class act is not fiscally viable and will not be implemented. the class act would have created a long-term care insurance option for employees, but you know what, it had been called a ponzi scheme of the first order. not my words. not even my governor's words. those are the words of senator conregard, the democratic senator of the budget committee. mr. speaker, this is another example of bad policy that was caused by the rushed approach to create and pass the patient protection and affordable care
2:05 pm
act. instead of focusing on reducing the price of long-term care insurance, the class act would have cost americans more money for the creation of yet another federal program. now, incredibly, the class act is being abandoned by the department of health and human services but the president refuses to let it go. we'll have a hearing on in my committee later this week, the energy and commerce. mr. speaker, we can do better. mr. speaker, we must do better. we need to repeal this health care law and replace it with commonsense, market-based solutions that enhance our medical system, put the patient at the center of care and drive down the cost of health care. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, we recently celebrated an important anniversary in the northern mariana islands for one of our longest serving spiritual leaders.
2:06 pm
reverend father isaac has led the island faithful for 25 years. it is the first ordained priest of the island of rota. he serves today of the cathedral and director of worship for the diocese. he had many mentors on his way to the priesthood in particular to his parents who supported him. in our faith-based community, priests are ever in demand. he conducts fuel rale rights for the recently departed. he helps those homebound. he has mass. outside these traditional duties, he has community functions where there is a large family gathering, he's
2:07 pm
expected to attend. when someone builds a new home, he's called upon to bless it. for your 25 years in the priesthood and as part of our daily lives, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a disposition -- deposition subpoena for documents and testimony by the u.s. district court for the southern district of texas to appear as a witness in a pending civil lawsuit. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined that the compliance with this subpoena is inconsistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed sincerely, brittany seberry, representative john culberson.
2:08 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a deposition subpoena for the documents and testimony by the u.s. district court for the southern district of texas to appear as a witness in a pending civil lawsuit. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. sign sincerely, john culberson, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the house has recess to give members more time to return from their home districts. at 4:00 p.m. eastern they will begin work on bills dealing with federal lands and energy projects.
2:09 pm
one would bar the u.s. from taking part of european union regulations of airplane emissions. live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. this afternoon, the house armed services committee will hold a hearing on the current state of the defense industrial base. the committee will hear from thinktank analyst. live coverage at the o'clock p.m. eastern on c-span 3. president obama is on the campaign trail today. he will be traveling to nevada as part of a three-day trip through western states. live coverage at 5:30 p.m. eastern as talks about home mortgages and private homes. he goes to california tomorrow and head to colorado tomorrow night and into wednesday. >> our review, which we issued last week in our report, identified that witnesses existed in key security controls at each of the 24 major federal
2:10 pm
agencies and departments. >> sensitive personal and classified data stored by the federal government is at high risk of cyber attacks, the finding of a just-released in gao report, find out more with the head of information security issues tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> private sector job creation initiative from today's "washington journal." thank you for joining us. explain this new initiative. what is it all about? guest: thank you for having me on. we partnered with starbucks to try to raise capital to help finance job creation and job
2:11 pm
retention across the united states. very simply, the way it works as anybody wants to make a donation of $5 a war can do that either on the web at createsjobsforusa.org or by going to starbucks and those who do well received a red, white, and the loovis band but the real purpose of the money is to go through opportunity finance networks that will quickly put that money back out into communities through a network of things called community development financial institutions. and they are in the business of financing community businesses, broadly defined. that includes retail and manufacturing but also non- profit businesses, affordable housing developers, commercial real estate, and that sort of thing. that money will go out quickly in the form of loans primarily to support businesses either in growth phase or job retention phase or in some cases start- ups. host: our guest will be with us
2:12 pm
for 40 minutes. he is from philadelphia -- createjobsusa is the initiative. we put up all numbers on the screen. we will get to your calls in a couple of minutes. first of all, though, what is the opportunity finance network and how did it come into being? guest: it is a network of the cdfi's, private financial institutions that lend to create benefits for low income, wealth, and other disadvantaged communities. it is what we have been doing for 30 years and we will continue to do. it is a financial intermediary. we also provide training and we do some work around policy in support of cdfi.
2:13 pm
host: our guest has been ceo of the opportunity finance network since 1995. explain how the partnership with starbucks came into being. it is actually a fascinating story and a quick story. we have been out in communities all over the country, urban and rural places and native markets and we hear from folks they want to be able to do something, be able to help, and we've -- we heard from carol schultz, the chairman and ceo, that he was going into stores and hearing the same things, that people felt that if they could do something they would do something. starbucks approached us. we had conversations with them over the years and they approached us and said can we do something together, is there a way we could raise money little bit at a time and put it together and have a significant impact on job creation and
2:14 pm
retention? that is what the cdfi's are doing. they have continued lending and continued lending successfully for community businesses. they are getting repaid. they are paying the investors. it was an easy connection to make. it started in late august when we started conversations. it was really clear to both of us admit a lot of cents. starbucks wanted to use its scale for good and that means it was able to connect with a lot of people, through its stores but also its ability to communicate out toward what we were trying to do. we had that ability to put that money to work really quickly. the idea was, if we could find a way for anyone who had $5 to share with people who did not have $5 to spare, it was worth doing it. we launched november 1, a week from tomorrow. we will go live on the website
2:15 pm
and in the starbucks stores and people will be able to make donations and we will quickly turn the money and around through the cdfi's so they are being deployed. host: before i get to calls, here is a quote written by harold shall, of starbucks. -- harold schultz. what is your own assessment of the situation in the country? guest: what we are focused on is less about the talk going on but more will we can do. that is what the partnership is all about. from his aside, he can now -- it came out of his frustration. there is no question we are stuck in some of our policy and politics, we are stuck in some
2:16 pm
of our lending, and we need to move forward. " we are trying to do cannot pretend it be the whole solution but it can be part of the solution and how to jump-start but solution. we want to worry less in a sense about what is not happening and focus on what can happen. what we know from our work over 30 years is that a 95, 98, 97 -- 99% of the people just what an opportunity to move forward, a job -- just want an opportunity. host: our first call is from philadelphia, coming from los angeles. amanda, a democrat. good morning. caller: i have two statements to make. one is for the host and one is for your guest. for the host, i thought the host was supposed to stay neutral. when chris crawford was on you made a statement about obama
2:17 pm
being desperate. i thought the host was supposed to stay neutral. host: we are. what i was going was referring to an earlier caller who said that. if that was not clear, that was my fault. but keep going. caller: it made you sound like a tea bagger and that annoyed me. for your guest, i want to tell you i appreciate everything you guys are doing. i love starbucks anyway and i will go there even if you are not promoting this. so, trust me. me and my girlfriend, we will go and put in that $5, even not to buy anything, we will do that. host: explain how a $5 donation at starbucks would turn into something insignificant? -- something significant?
2:18 pm
guest: i am glad you like starbucks but if people choose to, they can go online. this money, because it comes in as a donation, and it passes through my organization, 100% of the money donated goes into the community. there is no money taken off of overhead on our end. it goes into the cdfi as a capital grant. what it means is the cdfi can take the money and brought against did and 11 the total money. on average, the $5 that comes and will support about $35 of lending. a $5 donation whether starbucks, online, amended or her friends, eads $5 will support about $35 of new lending that will happen as a result of that. that $35, coupled with other $35, all together will support financing of all types of support -- micro enterprises,
2:19 pm
very small businesses -- but also large manufacturing companies. we do that based on what is happening in the markets where we are and we are in every state of the country and working in all different kinds of situations and they know best where the money will create and retain jobs. host: the initial goals and how do you expected to grow, what are the broad goals? guest: we are very fortunate and started digging the stocks foundation launched -- the star books foundation launched the fund. right from the beginning we have $5 million to start with. it is hard for us to know exactly what will happen. my experience, if that is right, we think we will raise tens of millions of dollars for sure, and that money, every $10 million will support about $7 million of financing. our hope is we can produce hundreds of millions of dollars of new financing to create or retain jobs.
2:20 pm
host: lake placid, georgia -- florida. >> how are you doing? okay, i have a question about the opportunity finance network. what is the contact number for someone to call up to secure funding? guest: thank you for asking, jason. you can call us by phone but the easiest way to do it is to go online to opportunityfinance.net, and at the bottom of the page there is something called cdfi locator. you click on that and it tells you are in florida and it will pop all of the cdfi's and loiter right now. if you want to try to call us, 215-320-4310 and we will try to make a connection for you. of course, you have to work with the individual cdfi in your community to arrange the
2:21 pm
financing, but that is what we are in the business of doing and we hope we can help it. host: our guest is the ceo of the opportunity finance network and also served on the consumer advisory council of the federal reserve board of governors, including serving as chair of the council in 2005. back in 2002 president george w. bush appointed him to the cdfi fund advisory board at the park and a treasury where he served until 2006. las vegas is our next caller. roy, republican. caller: i hate to sound like a devil's advocate but i am wondering, since it is a private organization, even the financial statements are open for viewing and what the average salary of the people who are administering this office, what they make. guest: thank you. it is not devil's advocate.
2:22 pm
financial statements are available. they are publicly available. all irs form, the irs form, are publicly available. i cannot tell you off the top -- a great question about average salary but i cannot tell you what the average salary of our folks are, but our books are open and anybody is welcome to look at them. again, if you contact us or e- mail us -- and you can e-mail me directly -- mpinsky@ opportunityfinance.net. host: this will start in about a week. besides programs like this, how are you getting the word out? caller: there's a whole range of activities. we announced we were going to do this back on october 3 and we did it largely through the media and let the media folks know about it and received widespread
2:23 pm
attention that it is coming. but around november 1 there will be a concerted effort to spread the word through advertising on tv and in france, on line, using social media, facebook and twitter, to spread the word. and there has been significant media interest as well. we think there will be pretty broad awareness of what we are trying to do and we hope it results not only in donations to create jobs for usa funds but also in businesses that are looking for financing. our experience has been through the cdfi's, our experience has been there are a lot of business is deserving of finance and have a tough time getting it. we do want to hear from businesses that want to match them up with csfi's to the right financing. host: the current climate on business lending, do you want to
2:24 pm
speak more broadly on that? guest: there is no question there has been a credit crunch that has gone on for several years now, the product of a lot of things. and there is no question that small business finance is tougher to come by then it was a few years ago. there are some indications from some of the big banks at least that they are trying to step up small-business lending and we uncovered that, we want them in the game and we are pleased to see that and hope it is right. but there has been a significant backlog of demand and unfortunately what has happened over the last few years is lost businesses. one of the things that happened to cdfi's working among the country as we started to hear from businesses that were previously banked and could no longer get credit. cdfi stepped up when we could, but not always possible. but we know there is significant demand. we did a quarterly survey of
2:25 pm
market conditions in the space and we see a strong and steady and high level of demand. we hope createjobsusa will help ameliorate that. but there is no question the business demand is there. even as banks -- big banks, small banks, community banks, credit unions -- anywhere -- anybody else willing to lend, it will take a year at least to get a small business credit flowback. host: do you have a position or do you want to speak at all about the president's jobs proposal, the whole debate in washington where what he put out seems to have stalled in congress? guest: without going into individual components of what the president proposed, we see it as a both end situation -- we need the government to move aggressively to try to support
2:26 pm
job creation and retention. we need the private sector, the corporate sector, to be doing all that it can. one of the points howard raised is they should be using resources to create and maintain jobs as they can. and we things like this and that have a philanthropic benson but really intended to contribute to this effort. you know, i am probably not the person who can tell you whether certain tax incentives are the right way to do it or whether direct expenditure is the right way. it is a complicated problem. but i know we are not going to be able to do it alone, and government can't do it alone, and corporate sector can't do it alone. host: mike on the line for democrats from oregon. caller: good morning, a gentleman. sir, i need to ask you really --
2:27 pm
ok, my concern really with starbucks in terms of whatever kind of job creation, that we thet end up -- the focus on returning troops and a craving something for these men and women. but quite honestly, i hope we don't end up seeing just a lot of more -- returning vets serving coffee. i'm hoping we can come up with something a little more creative. there was an old joke that starbucks in houston was the cause basically of the end of the universe. why? you cut down the street and there is a starbucks and turnaround another star books. we have too many of them. i like the coffee, but --
2:28 pm
host: i get the point. let's get to our guest in philadelphia. s talk aboutaller jobs for veterans. what your thoughts? guest: i could not agree more. i am hopefully -- hopeful we are creating jobs for veterans. we hope we can create jobs that are appropriate. no question veteran to come back from service have a skills that that is about -- that is incredibly valuable and hopefully we can put it to use simplesse a program. i don't think the folks at starbucks believe everyone should be working serving coffee. that is not our goal. in fact, the financing that will happen in this program is not aimed at financing starbucks, the goal is to create jobs in places where they are appropriate to the local market conditions and where they will create and retain jobs in those places.
2:29 pm
obviously, that will affect veterans and service members wherever they are whenever they come home. there are cdfi's that have a greater focus on returning veterans and veterans from prior service. so, it is something we care about and we care a lot about quality of the jobs. we have g one jobs that are good jobs that will help people support their families, pay for their education, if that is what they want to do. i think it is a valid point and absolutely part of what we care about. host: there is a tweet here duty -- what do you think? guest: we support businesses generally owns and stunned by low-income, no wealth folks.
2:30 pm
-- low wealth folks. we are not in the business of giving money to individuals for themselves. we are in the business of supporting community businesses. i would think what the tweeter is suggesting is probably more what the government could or should do perhaps, but that is not what we do, not what cdfi's do. we will not be the whole solution. no question is demand is what this is about. but we hope with creating and maintaining jobs -- retaining jobs, that will give people confidence to spend money and support their family, whether on housing, food, or anything like that and that and turn would be what drives the economy. host: let's hear from ohio. david on the republican line. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: i am a small business owner. i struggled for quite a few years without the help of many banks or financial institutions.
2:31 pm
by the way, you are right, they are not there to help us at this point. my problem is the word job creation. it is used very use lead throughout washington. you don't create a job. if you have a new product, the demand for the new product, and somebody to make it, that is creating a new job. increasing starbucks or kentucky fried is not creating jobs. host: what kind of business are you in, small business? caller: polyurethanes molding. host: how many do you employ? caller: two. host: and use a business has not been great. -- use say business has not been great. caller: i had to move from upper-middle-class to lower middle-class borderline.
2:32 pm
host: what do you think your future prospects are? caller: for myself, just to tread water. nafta was the downfall of the u.s. everybody talks about how president clinton had a balanced budget, a surplus. he is the one that signed it away when he jumped the gun and signed the free trade agreement with china, even though they have no child labor laws, slave labor laws, no osha -- they just have no regulations at all. and then 25% -- they give us a 25% tariff. totally unfair trade. host: what would you say to david in ohio who said he is basically chugging along without help of many governments --
2:33 pm
without the help of any government. guest: david, your story is a story we hear a lot from small businesses that are struggling. demand is low and it makes it hard. i would not disagree with you. i agree that it is demand for products, having good products and demands for it. what we can do is provide the financing so business can be positioned to take advantage of that, whether it is a labor force or supply chain question or by whether it is a marketing question. there may be demand businesses need help finding. so, you are absolutely right about that. and i think this is a tough business environment in general. i don't know your industry will enough to know the challenges that were created by cafta or competition by china. no question there are and balances -- imbalances without
2:34 pm
we manage business here and what the government does and other countries, which makes for challenges in small businesses. having said that, what our experience is, is that most small business owners, they may have their frustrations and things causing them problems. what they really want to do is be successful and what they do. they would to produce the best products and services they possibly can. i am sure you do. and they want to find a market. we tried to be as proud that -- as pragmatic as we can amidst all of the challenges that are distractions for small-business owners. i don't know the specifics of your business. if you want to get in touch with us, i would love to know more. i did not know if you want help from a financial institutions or you don't. you said you had not had any help of the past, maybe by choice.
2:35 pm
but if it is something a cdfi could help with, we would be glad to talk to you. host: our guest is the ceo of the opportunity finance network talking to us about a partnership with starbucks beginning next week to launch the "create jobs for usa" program. here is a look at the opportunity finance web site. you can see the tab that says let's create jobs for usa. createjobsforusa.org is another place to go. we have passed from tennessee. caller: good morning, and gentleman. mr. pinsky, i have often wondered, i hear often
2:36 pm
politicians saying that small businesses are the ones that create the jobs. i heard on c-span callers saying they are hiring two or three people and then one gentleman a couple of months ago said he did not hire anybody, he just runs his business himself. are there any guidelines on the qualifications of how many jobs this company might have to hire? and what do you think about the statement that the small businesses create the jobs? then a two points -- host: two points. guest: those were great questions, thank you. small businesses are significant job creators. no question about it. what happens is, you can have a
2:37 pm
lot of small businesses hiring a few people, which can create significant number of jobs, but when small businesses as they often do get it right and hit on an idea or product or produces something there is demand for, they can grow significantly. the pace of growth can be great and that is where you can get significant job creation as you go forward. but we also have to look broadly in this economy about where jobs come from. one of the things we do with create jobs usa is support non- profit businesses because nonprofit businesses are surprisingly large percentage of jobs in this country, about 8%. it might be social service provider, a charter school, a child care facility. so, we took a broad view on what it means to do that. having said that, your first question, i think, is there is no requirement, known number on
2:38 pm
the number of jobs who need to exist in this business or recreated, but having said that, we do prioritize in the way we will fund the cdfi's and the way they will finance businesses. we do prioritize those who have greater crime -- job creation or retention potential. we will look at that closely in order to get funding -- you need to demonstrate the demands for the financing and we will look at that the man to see if it is likely to create fewer jobs and more jobs -- looking at the demand to see if it is likely to create fewer jobs or more jobs. and we will make sure the money goes to the places where it will have the greatest potential to create or retain the most jobs. >> another tweet, actually two- parts, but the second part of want to get your take on -- sort of touched on that -- are
2:39 pm
there regulations in place to prevent borrowing from? host: -- guest: we aspire to create good opportunities and not the opportunities that get people stop. that is what we are trying to do with that. and there are a range of provisions in place, for some there are regulations in terms of the lending, and in some, there are not. in some they are determined by the marketplace, we have a whole range of different types of investors, so we have investors that range from banks and other financial institutions to nuns lending to us. they will put requirements on what the lending can and can't be and they will enforce that. in essence, it is a more complete solution. different cdfi's work in
2:40 pm
different places and the lending of all cdfi's, there is no secret. financials of all cdfi's are publicly available. there is a department in treasury called the cdfi fund that provides some support for cdfi's, and that helps to ensure that those who participate, that it is public scrutiny of the regulations vary depending on the type of cdfi. host: anne from greensboro, north carolina. caller: i am wondering how many jobs you foresee to be created? 1 million or 2 million? also, have you received any push back from the republican party regarding this? their premise is not to create any jobs now because it might help the economy which in turn would help the president. have you gotten pushed back from them about trying to create some jobs?
2:41 pm
guest: great questions. the answer to the first one is, the number of jobs that will be created or retained will depend very much on the amount of money donated. we cannot know how much it will be. a couple of things we do know -- we know it takes about $21,000 on average across this whole program to create or retain a job. you can do the math but, for example, the $5 million contribution that starbucks made it to kick this off ought to create just under 1700 jobs on average as would go through this. it will take some jobs -- some time to know whether it is the case are not. but we did not know how many dollars coming in. a couple of things -- but we will have on the website where we are calling a johns counter and we will take the number of dollars donated, it will be tracked on a dollar basis, how many dollars donated from people like you and then we will
2:42 pm
multiplied that by our formula to sort of give an estimate of how many jobs were expected to create. we don't stop there because we think if you are going to donate your $5 you have a right to know with a little more accuracy what is going on. we will ask cdfi's to track job creation and retention so they will have a set to compare against the jobs counter, but even that is not enough. about 12 months after a cdfi receives funding, we will do a job as audit. we have an independent third- party agency that is going to be with to go out and see how the money is used, how many jobs created, we will talk to some of the businesses and get an honest count. we want to be transparent, we want to be accountable and what people to know what happens. it depends on the number of dollars. the second question -- we have not received push back frankly from much of anybody, we have received a lot of support across the board. i think there is a lot of
2:43 pm
excitement and enthusiasm about this idea that americans can help americans. this is a fundamental tenet of what america is about. we think there is going to be broad support and we expected to be bipartisan support. the starkly cdfi -- historically cdfi have brought support because they did not skewed to one political party or another, simply pragmatic solutions for real problems that affect people every day. >host: 8 tweet -- a tweet -- guest: there was not a lot of magic to the $5 figure. we thought it was a reasonable minimal amount for people to donate. and again, we understand some people don't have $5 to spare or $5 to share, and those are the folks, frankly, we want to
2:44 pm
be able to help with this program. there was not great science about it. we felt it was a modest amount for most people and we know it is not for some people and for those people we hope they will reach out to us so we can help them. host: another tweak -- tweet, wondering if starbucks is putting up matching funds. guest: they are putting up seed funds, so the stock -- so the $5 million will be to get things rolling so we can start as soon as possible. the program launches november 1 and the book and start making donations but we want to start creating jobs before we even had the chance to take in an account all the money and put it back out. that will give it a faster start. the starbucks foundation is also providing support in the form of -- i said earlier that 100% of every donation, 100% will go through the communities, the
2:45 pm
cdfi, and get multiplied to support -- $5 supporting $35 of financing. one way to do it is to cover the incremental costs of making sure that this program gets done right. the support goes beyond the $5 million and ordered to do this. but the goal here is to create -- again, to respond to something said earlier -- the goal is to respond will we hear and communities, what harold shultz told me, and what i hear all the time in the communities, south dakota, or urban los angeles or anywhere else and what i hear is those people who feel like they are in addition to help are looking for a way to help, a way to do something. so that is what we are trying to do. host: the last couple of calls. illinois, good morning.
2:46 pm
caller: one of the things that gripe me is the way the government has treated the factory worker in this country. we have lost over half of our manufacturing jobs in the last 10 or 12 years. the republicans passed nafta to open the doors and, of course, bill clinton signed the bill so it is both democrat and republican responsibility for this. i want to see the government start protecting our manufacturing base rather than allowing it to be sent overseas. the chinese protect their own economies. through the manipulation of their currency and also for the duties they charge for people trying to ship into china. one of these days, when the working middle class realizes that they are not middle class
2:47 pm
anymore because those manufacturing jobs that made them middle-class are no longer available to them, you are going to see a lot of unrest. it is not going to happen soon but ultimately i think you are going to be faced with that. i would hope the federal government would get off there square one and start protecting the american factory worker. host: a statement there, not a question. but any response? guest: no, i can't speak for -- no question there is a lot of the stress and turmoil in the workplace and the jobs market. i certainly acknowledge that. we need to do something as a nation. but again, what you are focused on, i cannot give the answer of what the government should do. we are trying to support the folks out there today trying to figure out -- whether
2:48 pm
manufacturing, retail, house construction -- trying to figure out how to help support those folks trying to create and retain jobs. host: james on the line for a democrat from michigan. caller: i have a question and comment. in form america how many people does it take to consider to be small business -- 1 to 500 is considered a small business, correct? guest: lots of different numbers. but that is a fine number. lots of people figure in different ways. caller: the problem obama is having come all the races to republican senators and the south are making it their mission not to help him with the economy or anything else. they want him to fail. have a good day. host: the last caller, the final comment from our guest in
2:49 pm
philadelphia about this program which you hope would lead to a lot of lending. what are your best hopes? rapid up, if you can. -- wrap it up." guest: our hope is it will motivate and start -- spur individuals to action, businesses, and even motivate the government to look forward and figure out what we can do about it. we are committed to doing this, starbucks is committed for an extended period of time we would be very happy to put ourselves out of business when the economy comes back. we hope it will happen sooner than later. but what we are trying to do is tap into what we think is the fundamental american spirit of americans helping americans. and it will give people a reason to sort of look forward, and together hopefully we can create a retain jobs for the usa.
2:50 pm
host: ceo of the opportunity finance network joining us from philadelphia. thanks for the look ahead at this new program. appreciate your time. >> the u.s. house will gavel back in for legislative work in just about an hour, 4:00 today. live coverage. members will consider legislation blocking u.s. participation in european union regulation of airplane emissions. any votes requested will take place at 6:30 p.m. eastern. this afternoon the house armed services committee holds a hearing on the current fate of the defense industrial base -- state of the defense industrial base. live coverage at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. president obama on the campaign trail today. he is traveling to nevada as part of a three-day trip through western states and c- span2 will have live coverage starting at 5:30 p.m. eastern as the president talked about home mortgages from a private home. he then goes to california to
2:51 pm
mars and california tomorrow night into wednesday -- california tomorrow and cat -- colorado's marmite wednesday. >> sees an's web site for campaign 2012, easy-to-use, it helps to navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates, candidate buyer fees, and the latest polling data and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> although this headline proved false, do we's defeat by harry truman was iconic and he continued to impact political history. this week on "the contenders, what follows thomas e. dewey, a dominant force in the of state politics as three-time governor and influencing national politics and the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city friday at 8:00
2:52 pm
p.m. eastern on c-span. >> british prime minister david cameron spoke to parliament today about libya and his participation this past weekend in the european union summit. parliament members asked him about the eurozone crisis. his comments and the question and answer session last about an hour. >> statement, the prime investor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission and, i would like to make a statement on recent developments in libya and yesterday that the european council. it is today in libya, after 42 years of tyranny and several months of fighting, the national transitional council declared a formal liberation of their country. everyone would have been moved by the pictures of the joy and relief that we saw on our television screens last night. from tripoli to benghazi, misrata, libyans now there to look forward save them the knowledge of the gaddafi error
2:53 pm
is truly behind them. this was libya's revolution, but britain can be proud of the role we played. our aim for what was to fulfill the terms of the u.n. security council, protect civilians and to give the libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. with the death of gaddafi they really do have that chance. the whole house will join me to take -- and paying tribute to our armed forces, over 3000 missions flown, 2000 strike sorties, one-fifth of the total flown by nato. as the chief of the demands -- defence staff has written, it has been one of the most successful operations nato has conducted in its 62-year history, and i believe it is something the whole country can take pride in. the decision to intervene militarily, to place our brave servicemen and servicewomen in the line of fire is never easy. we were determined from outset to conduct this campaign in the right way and to learn the lessons of recent interventions.
2:54 pm
to make sure this house was provided immediately with the summary of the legal advice authorizing the action. we held a debate and vote in parliament at the earliest opportunity. we made sure decisions were taken probably throughout the campaign with the right people present and in an orderly way. the national security council on libya met 68 times, formulated our policy and drove for the military and diplomatic campaign. we took great care that targeting paid attention to civilian casualties and a one to pay tribute to the right honorable member from somerset for his work on this. it is the mark of the skill of raf, british -- and other pilots that the number of civilian casualties has been low. in the next few days and nights of's operation will formally be concluded. it would now before libyans to chart their own destiny and this country will stand ready to support them. many commentators have written about the lessons that can be learned from the last seven
2:55 pm
months. for our part, the government is conducting an exercise while memories are still fresh and we will publish key findings. for my part, i am wary of drawing some overarching lesson, that libya offers a new template. i believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits, thinking through carefully and a decision to intervene in advance. but i hope it has also shown in this country has learned not only the lessons of iraq but the lessons of bosnia, too. when it is necessary, legal, and right to act, we should be ready to do so. mr. speaker, let me turn to yesterday's european council. this european council was about three things -- sorting out the problems of the eurozone, promoting growth in the european union, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for government, the interest of those outside the eurozone are protected. this latter point touches directly on the debate in the house later today, and i will say a word on this later in my
2:56 pm
statement. resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members but the eu as a whole and, indeed, the rest of the world. britain is playing a positive role for posing three vital steps needed. the establishment of a financial fire wall big enough to contain any contagion, the credible recapitalization of european banks, and the size of solution to the problems in greece. we push these at a video conference between nicolas sarkozy and angela merkel and president obama this week, and in front of the european council this weekend and on wednesday at an extra european council meeting. the way to make the whole of the eu, including the eurozone, work better, is to promote open market, flexible economies and enterprise. this is an agenda britain has promoted under successive
2:57 pm
governments and prime ministers. but it is an agenda of the european commission is promoting, too. we have many differences with them but the presentation made by the -- by yesterday's council is exactly what we have been pushing for, driving home the importance of creating a single market and services, opening a jamarcus, scrapping the rules and bureaucracy that makes it so hard to start new businesses. both coalition partners are pushing hard. they may sound dry, but if you want to give europe's economy moving, to succeed, these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. these arguments that margaret thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place and which every prime minister since has tried to push. if the countries of the eu or as productive as the united states, if we have the same proportion of women participating in our economy, if we were as flexible as setting up new businesses, then we would have the same gdp
2:58 pm
per capita as the united states, and that is an aim we should adopt. the remainder of the council was spent on the safeguards needed to protect the interest of all 27 members of the european union. the council agreed that all matters related to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states, and the european commission must, and i quote, safeguard a level playing field among all member states, including those not participating in the europe. this means -- leads me directly to the date we are having in the house later today. members of my party fought the last election committed to three things -- stopping the passage of further powers to the eu, instituting a referendum law to require a referendum by law for any such transfer of powers from this house, and bringing back powers from brussels to westminster. if all three remained party policy, all three, in my view, are in the national interest, and in 17 months in government we already achieved two of the three.
2:59 pm
no more powers to brussels -- indeed, the bailout of power has action been returned, and the referendum locke is in place -- law is in place and i am firmly committed to bringing back more power from brussels. of the question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next session of this parliament to ride for a referendum which would include a question on whether britain should leave do you altogether. let me say why i continue to believe this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong, and how britain can best advance our national interest it first, it is our right because our national interest is to interpret the rules governing the market, our biggest export market but consumes more than a percent sign up for exports -- more than 50% of our exports. with masses for millions of jobs and millions of the families and businesses in our country. that is why successful prime
3:00 pm
ministers have advocated our minister -- membership of the eu. when your neighbor's house is on on your, your first impulse should be to help them put out the flames, knocked lead to stop the flames reaching your own house. this is not the time, this is not the time to argue about walking away. not just for their sake, but our are worse. third, there is a danger that our recent the prospects of a referendum, including an auction, we race -- we miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. fundamental questions are being asked about the future, and therefore the shape of the eu itself. opportunities to a dance our national interests are clearly becoming apparent. we should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a
3:01 pm
parliamentary process for of multiple referendum. changes made to the eu treaty need the agreement of all 27 member states. every country can wield the veto until the needs are met. and i share the yearning for fundamental reform, and i am determined to deliver it. those better supporting today's motion but do not want to leave the eu, i say to you this, i respect your views, we disagree about ends, not about means. like you, i want to see fundamental reform. like you, i want to refashion memberships a whit better reforms the nation's conflict. let us not be distracted from seizing it. and i commend this statement to the house. and >> mr. speaker, time is up.
3:02 pm
i think the prime minister for his statement. on libya, i start by joining him in expressing gratitude to members of the british armed forces. over the past several months, once again, our service men and women have been a credit to our nation, exercising our responsibility to the libyan people and to uphold the will of the united nations. that is why i have supported the government and its actions. i cannot commend the prime minister on the role he has played in taking the right and principled decision on this issue. there are difficult days ahead, and it's for the libyan people to determine their future. but you say, i'd agree with him the ball by the responsibility to protect, which we exercise, is a responsibility to help rebuild, in particular, to help provide expertise that the new libya will require. let me now turn to europe. here are the opening of the
3:03 pm
remarks. we are clear, and have been consistently, that getting out of the european union is not in our national interest. cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for britain, and the overwhelming majority of british business, however i'm happy they are, with aspects of the eu, know that also. what more, at this moment and all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from britain turning inward or the next two years to debate a referendum is something our country cannot afford. the best answer to the concerns of the british people about the european union is to fix the way it works, not leave it. that makes the completion of the single market, reform of state aid if the issue. that is why i will be voting against the motion tonight. mr. speaker, this is the context for the european council
3:04 pm
prime minister went to this weekend. growth stalling in europe. unemployment rising, and the threat of a new banking crisis. that is why yesterday summit was aware of work. listen carefully, mr. spine -- esther prime minister, it now seems as if he seems -- it seems british to play an active role in solving this crisis. the truth is month after month they have chosen to grandstand on the sidelines and not help sort out this issue mr. speaker, the chancellor refused to go to the initial meetings he was invited to on that issue. if they show no will to try and find a solution. but me ask where does the prime minister now stand on begin? -- let me ask, does the prime the prime minister now stand on banking? on greece, does he believe the
3:05 pm
lessons of previously-announced greek bailouts are being learned and will provide a general lead sustainable solution? on growth, does he now understand that europe will not get to grips with its debt problem until it gets to grips with the crisis of growth and debt lack of demand in the european economy? mr. speaker, i suppose we should be pleased that the government has moved from the chancellor being empty chair at the meeting to the prime minister at least wanting to get into the meeting. he will have to do better than yesterday, because he was a prison makori about his one real achievement at the summit, that and a few short hours he managed to write the euro version of how to lose friends and alienate people. [laughter] he went into the summit and lecturing the germans. he came out of it being charted out by the french. -- being shouted at by the fr ench.
3:06 pm
[laughter] [yelling] atdent sarkozy ent a how the math. let me say, yesterday you spoke not just for france, but for britain as well. you know, the prime minister was in brussels but his mind was elsewhere. but to repair -- the tory party on europe suffering another nervous breakdown. our prime minister making frantic phone calls home. mr. speaker, it is not just the thorn roses on a comeback tour. now mr. speaker, all of the prime minister's present difficulties are of his own making, because what did he say in 2006?
3:07 pm
instead of talking about the things the most people care about, we were begging on about europe. mr. speaker, he has spent the past five years telling backbenchers he may not be begging on about europe, but deep down he is really one of them. he was warned he might start by getting to this. that is exactly what happened. there was a dinner and european leaders saturday night. mainstream center-right europe. the prime minister not invited. and he is the person who kept telling us he was a euro skeptics up, threw out the election promise we negotiations of the term of the membership of
3:08 pm
the eu. his party is paying the price, because they believe what he told them, and the country is paying the price because we are losing and when spirited mr. speaker, yesterday the prime minister was out there again. -- and mr. speaker, yesterday the prime minister was out there again. mr. speaker, the coalition agreement is clear, the option as off the table. [laughter] stock option, the third option in his statement, is off the table. the foreign secretary confirmed that again. what position is he going to take? for a renegotiation or against? the coalition agreement says that option as off the table. he said in his argument he is off the table.
3:09 pm
mr. speaker, this goes to the heart of the prime minister's ability to fight in europe on behalf of this country. like his predecessor, he is called between the party interest in national interest. we see a rerun of the old movie. all the time at the british people are left to worry about their jobs and livelihood. mr. speaker, the prime minister should stop aggression with backbenchers and start fighting for the national interest. the prime minister -- >> thank you for the kind words. as far as the responsibility to protect, we do have got to rebuild, and we will certainly do that. in terms of what he said on europe, it started well with praise for completing the single market. he did not tell us about all of his views on europe, because he did not tell us yesterday he was asked repeatedly if labor were the euro.join
3:10 pm
is the answer was, it depends on how long i am prime minister for. >> i a [laughter] i am not done. which prospect as more terrifying than? he accused the government of not going to meetings in europe. meetingsbeen going to beat u to get out that the mechanisms of the bailout that he put us into pure and. on greece, we certainly want to see decisive action. let me be clear about that. he then said an extraordinary thing about the french president, thing he thought he speaks for britain. and god is what he said. that is what he said. -- that is what he said.
3:11 pm
it is difficult to sell out your country, but he has just done it. i then struggle to look for question to answer. he talked about the importance of global leadership. let me remind him, one of not salukis is going to be the role of the imf, and let's remember he led his backbenchers and all of this front benchers through the division bobby to vote against the imf deal that his own former prime minister had negotiated with them one bit. -- with them in london. and >> a very large hon. right and let members are seeking to accommodate, but i remind the house we have a fairly heavily subscribed debate to take place after. >> i agree with the prime minister's view on the bit this
3:12 pm
afternoon, but has the gone through the actual terms of the motion in the third option, which is to renegotiate members that have order to create a new relationship based on trade and cooperation? is thought not purely if the situation of norway and sweden? and should not anyone who is interested in renegotiations that will enable us to stay within the union oppose this motion? >> i think the vital interest for the uk as belonging to the single market, not just be able to trade in the single market, but having a seat at the table where you can negotiate the rules of this to go market, which countries like norway are not able to do. the other problem with the motion, and that's completely understand the frustrations that macaulay talk about europe. one of the problems is that you have a three-which waste, you could find 34% of the country voting to get out of the european union would be enough to deliver that, or indeed, 34% vote for the status quo, which
3:13 pm
many of us think is unacceptable. a pretty clear decision was made. >> how would the prime minister characterize his relations with president sarkozy? >> if you have good relations with them, you can have frank discussions with them. i can tell you what happened that the european council yesterday. and on the issue of libya, britain and france have worked together post -- more closely than any time in the past four years, and on defense cooperation, we will continue to do that. it is in our national interest that the eurozone deals with its problems, and it is right that we make that clear. and >> are right hon. friend deserves great credit for the determination and leadership she has shown in relation to libya.
3:14 pm
but we understand his peers steps -- and mine are hardly identical, but at the very least, might we agreed that in opposing president sarkozy barack cumming yes clearly acting in the national interest? >> i am very grateful for that comment. the fact is his right that this is a coalition. the coalition came together in the national interest, and he is acting in the national interest. and i think it's right to oppose this motion tonight on the grounds that he put forward. >> i think it's a shame that we only spent 10 minutes on the -- libya, european council and the motion. and secretary geithner said even of all let greece is debts were
3:15 pm
repaid, we would still cover problem. could you tell us how greece could regain competitiveness? >> i have given more statements on the european council spent many prime ministers. i am voicing sister come back and report to the house. greece is the most glaring problem but the eurozone house to deal with. bob has to be dealt with it decisively. it needs to be backed by the recapitalization of banks, but the fundamental problem is this issue of competitiveness, and they're very large correct imbalances that are building up in some of the member states, particularly those in the south. as a result, what needs to happen above all is an advance in competitiveness, and trade and competing with the single market, that will help all of the economies and the near-term. >> william cash. >> the prime minister has made it clear she advocates fiscal
3:16 pm
union within the eurozone. he advocates it. can he explain to the house how with is that fiscal union of that kind is not fiscal change in our relation ship with -- and our relationship with the european union and how it is clear that whether it is fundamental change, there must be a referendum? how can he square that circle? >> let me be clear to the gentleman, i do think fundamental changes are coming in europe. they are clearly coming to the eurozone. to start with that may be a treaty change, and that will present opportunities for britain, and we should respond to those opportunities. and responding to those opportunities, is their right to go off down the path of having a referendum, including option, just as there are horror -- just as there are opportunities for britain as the eu is changing? >> i congratulate the prime
3:17 pm
minister on his accomplishments and libya, but there are other countries like yemen that need to be focused on. there are benchmarks for economic growth, which was replaced by the 2020 strategy. is the prime minister confident that despite the euro crisis, those targets will be achieved? >> first of all, he is right on yemen, and we're spending an increasing amount of time determining how we can best achieve hoping that country tackle the real security concerns we have in yemen. in terms -- he is right, there has been the wisdom process, 2020 profits. the problem is that as the agenda and push forward, but the targets investors are not met. when i would say after 16 months of going to these meetings, i do see a change of heart, not least because everyone recognizes the priority in europe is growth.
3:18 pm
the commission has to stop adding expensive regulations and start deregulating the exact gender we are putting forward. -- the exact agenda we are putting forward. >> there is a real opportunity for reconstruction in transition to democracy pure yen -- and transition to democracy. >> the first thing we have done is to help to change the european neighborhood policy to make sure it is much more engaged with libya, egypt, and much more conditionality put in so there is real progress towards rights and democracy for the countries we're hoping. in addition to that, we have sixth -- we have a significant bilateral program to help with the building blocks of democracy, to help them develop political priorities.
3:19 pm
do not join in tribute to our bravery of our servicemen and women over libya, the work of nato and the ticker the command that prime minister on his leadership of the issue up libya. the same cannot be said. the people today and britain will be asking, why have we decided to firmly set aside that back benchers and a parental -- referendum on the issue of europe? >> as i said, the country can be proud of what our service personnel have done. on the issue of europe, i am very clear about what parliament should do about a referendum. when we come to this place, we do not come here to give away powers that belong to the people, not to us. i think it is wrong we did not our referendum on wall street, lisbon and other treaties.
3:20 pm
did you i have is that what comes to this parliament proposing to give up power worse, that is when there should be a referendum >. >> we are global traders. not being part of the backward- facing inward-basting protection racket, which is what the european union as part of. given the prime minister's objections about timing, can he give us a timetable for getting our response from the european union? >> first of all, where i would have some disagreement with my hon. friend, of course we want to export more to china, india, brazil off, russia, and turkey of course we want to do that. it the% of our trade is with european countries.
3:21 pm
there is the interest not just to keep the markets open, but to further open them up, and that is what we should be pushing in the european union and what we are pushing. i think there is a case for referendum. if ever this parliament was to propose giving up more powers. otherwise, i think it is very clear what the country has to do, and that is stay in the european union but retreat some powers and make sure we have a better relationship with europe. that is the commitment we have. >> the prime minister was recognized. it is only growth that is one to make a real difference to the financial crisis. why did he not actually advocate the policies of growth within the debate? that way it would give a lead to the people about why it was so important? >> we have been doing exactly that. i think one of the reasons why some of these countries have gotten into the difficulties as
3:22 pm
not just a shortage of growth and competitiveness kamal although that has been key, but also building up very large budget deficit. -- and competitiveness, although that has been key, but also building a very large budget deficits. >> my constituents in dover were very pleased to see the prime minister standing up to the french. when it comes to the national interest, is that not the key points that we need action on budget, action on getting us down to the bailout fund, settling down to 7 billion rebates that we to hide? what the british people want us to do specifically with respect to europe, the biggest danger they sense is getting drawn into further bailout, and that is why and a treaty change that has already come forward, that was the price we exacted, to get out
3:23 pm
of the bailout fund by 2013 so we returned to power back to the u.k. we have secured agreement with some of the large countries in europe for greece this year. those priorities, plus the referendum are what we are unable to change are ready. >> the prime minister praised margaret thatcher. [inaudible] the prime minister try to emulate. >> prime minister. take up the hon. gentleman reminds us margaret thatcher did put her money where her mouth was. -- >> hon. gentleman reminds us margaret thatcher did put her money by her mouth was.
3:24 pm
>> could you speculate on what the cost would happen to the taxpayer the way forward if he and his friends had not negotiated to get greece out of the bailout mechanism? >> the point about a bailout mechanism is we were left exposed by the last government because of the existence of the esfm. from we're still at risk 2013, we have ended it. we have also stayed out of the second greek bailout. that is an achievement. these things that saved real money. that's really import for people to understand, the government has been focused on delivering something concrete and important for the british people at this time. >> mr. speaker, as a member of the house who voted for the implementation, but the security council resolution of 1973, into refused to meet market talk be when he invited me to go to
3:25 pm
libya to collect by natural compensation, blood and money for the family of fletcher, may i state my discussed with the border of the killing of market coffee and i asked him to emphasize the transitional council that the future of democracy and libya wise and reconciliation, not revenge. >> i think the gentleman makes an important part. the leader of the national transitional council house -- has announced there will be in a greek -- inquiry into the circumstances of his death. clearly we wanted him to face justice. i do not stand for 1 -- stand back for one sector and that because the member gaddafi era is over that it does give him -- the people that feared of him coming back that there was a
3:26 pm
difficulty in building the future. they cannot get on with the future. >> i greatly welcome the prime minister's leadership on libya, and the liberation is a success, not only for the libyan people, but also for proving the international community can act together to implement the responsibility to protect. will the prime minister agree we have to also exercise caution, intervention must be sparingly and only in cases of all around criteria, such as a serious threat to human life? been there being clear support or international action. >> i very much agree with my friend and the way she puts her question. i would add that you should only intervene if you believe you are capable of doing so it can actually bring about the affect you need. i think there is a very important issue there, not just seeing what is legal and necessary, but also what you can
3:27 pm
do. >> the prime minister must know of their growing division between the public and politicians. and >> doesn't that just man once again -- me once again when 75 percent this parliament is not listening? >> i think hon. lady asks a very important question, and let me try to answer it. i believe it is right to have public petitions in the way that we now do. this government has brought that reform back. i will say this, issue of europe is not some inside issue, it is an important issue, and important that political parties make their views known.
3:28 pm
and this is an important issue i believe in the importance of parliament. i do not believe you can believe in a sovereign parliament. i simply do not think that is consistent. >> the prime minister tells today's telegraph it there is any treaty changes to shore up the year roque, we should use that to get pounds back over employment and social policy. yet on the 26 of march he agreed to precisely such a treaty change but did not ask for anything in return. and >> i have to take issue with my hon. friend. at the very commited treaty change that is about to be debated in the house of commons and passed gets us out of the bailout mechanism that the bailout -- that the last government got us into. i thought, and i still think that was the single most
3:29 pm
important price wheat could exact for that treaty change. that was the biggest concern the british public have appeared at the point i made yesterday and will make again today, i do believe the huge change will take place in the european union. a huge will -- change will take place and the eurozone theory and -- and the eurozone. this is something we should be talking about in the house of commons in coalition as whole. and i do not think we will further back by having a referendum that includes an option of walking away if from the burning house when we should be dealing with that issue and then talking about the future. >> the assessments of the crisis of the eurozone and economic growth. >> as i said yesterday, the eurozone crisis have had a chilling affect, not only on eurozone economies, but on our own economies as well and elsewhere in the world. the eurozone is a huge market
3:30 pm
goods. world could's if we were to clear -- see a big break up for the eurozone, that would have severe consequences, and that is why i think it is important to try to solve this issue. >> can i join others and commending my hon. friend for his leadership on libya. he does deserve credit. can i ask thank you for the constructive tone he has adopted those to the supporting nations. does he understand our anxiety that so many parties having promised a referendum again and again, it clearly being something that the british people want to have to say something over the future relationship, that it is ironic that the house of commons is unlikely to vote against what
3:31 pm
the european people want? dull i think the gentleman for his comments about libya and for his comments on my town. -- >> i thank the gentleman for his comments about libya in for his comments on my tone. i think that answer to frustration and the country about not having a referendum about lasting as not to offer around them -- referendum on the next idea. the most important thing is to deliver what people want, which is to make sure we get the best out of european union if, and where there are opportunities, we take those opportunities. that is the focus we should have in this parliament and beyond. >> the prime minister rightly said the 27 nations states will decide on the single market. he has not told the house the presence of the council has been elected president of the 17
3:32 pm
nations state within the eurozone with france on one soldier -- shoulder and germany on the other. the president has said he will inform the british government and inform them of the results. does the prime minister think to be informed is the same to be as consultant? >> i think hon. gentleman makes an important point, which is as the eurozone comes together and the government arrangement change, it is very important that those countries that are not in the eurozone and do not want to join the eurozone have their interests protected, and that is why i secured specific language about making sure there is a level playing field and countries outside the eurozone are protected. this is a journey. the eurozone is going on one journey where they seek closer collaboration and cooperation, and countries outside will be looking for further protections to make sure some of our vital national interests, things like financial-services, are properly
3:33 pm
protected and not put worse by -- put at risk by what is happening in the eurozone. >> we have 100 golden days to deliver stabilization but for the jury is picked returns to despair for the local population. the clock is stopped ticking. can the prime minister say if you were to are you will deliver the stabilization? >> we worked very closely with other on the reconstruction plan for libya. a lot of work has gone into that. i have to say i am optimistic that i think we have seen what the national transitional council that it is generally national, bringing the country together, not wanting to see a transition between spain gauzy and libya. -- bengazi and libya. everything i have seen shows they want to get on with the rebuilding of the country. and because of the sovereign
3:34 pm
will find, they have the means to do it. >> in the prime minister's statement, he suggested the eu economies could be as productive as the u.s., but with unemployment being higher than at any point since 1988, could the prime minister tell us three things he has done to increase the proportion of women in the work force? >> we have increased the hours available for three-year-olds and four-year-old. [inaudible] wer isuspect interest nothe anss no, because there are very different. >> he is absolutely right. >> we have to ask for it
3:35 pm
clearly, what is the national interest for the uk. and at the heart of the national interest it is not only to have access to the single market, but to make sure we're sitting around the table determining their roles that exporters talk to follow. >> which situation does the prime minister hope we will arrive at first? but the eurozone can pass -- that the eurozone can pass without breaking on us or [inaudible] [laughter] >> but obviously took a long time to construct that one. what i believe will happen is the eurozone countries are coming together and seeing the need for a big and bold solution. that will not solve the problem, because there are still major stresses and strains if any to be dealt with in the long term,
3:36 pm
but i believe that will happen over the course of this week. in terms of the house of commons, it is up to the house of commons how it votes tonight, but i am very clear our interest is to be in the european union and seek our national interest that all time. >> mark pritchard. >> i congratulate the prime minister on its leadership on libya. [laughter] returning to the school union, what part of fiscal year in and he believes could trigger the european union act in 2011? >> the key point about the european act that we put in place, the referendum block, as that and the passage of powers from britain to brussels result in a referendum. that is the key thing we have delivered, which means never again can you have a situation like lisbon where you have a treaty passed, where powers were passed from this house to someone else without the british
3:37 pm
people ask first. i sometimes think we lost the ability to make a significant change this is. that is the key thing the referendum delivers. i think everyone on this side of the house can be very proud of it. >> just a few months ago this house and 42.5 hours debating -- house spent 42.5 hours debating the eu bill. >> if the government proposes passing house -- powers from this house to brussels commission asked the british people first. it's a simple principle we put into the wall. it is very important to establish clear rules. i absolutely believe there rule one, one is to be worth giving up powers that belong to the british people, you should ask them first. take richard harrington. >> i would like to commend the
3:38 pm
prime minister on his statement because he will restore -- will reassure thousands of my constituents. but i would ask him to reassure me on the things that the people do not like a comet that they will be dealt with to the best of his ability during his government? >> i can opt to go we give them their restaurants. getting out of the bailout, and getting agreement a month of on the biggest bailout, those are all important point. -- i can absolutely give him reassurance. it is because of access to the world's biggest single market. that is important and very important for the investment by
3:39 pm
american, japanese, and other firms into britain creating the jobs and wealth we need. >> thank you. with some seeing the banks holding sovereign debt may have to take a 25% to 60% a rate cut, could the prime minister explain what he means it is big enough to contain contagion and what he thinks at the imf needs to be involved? >> there are two issues. if we are born to see a resolution to the greek situation, you need a recapitalization of the banks to withstand the losses. -- if we're going to see a resolution to the greek situation, we need to see a recapitalization of the banks to withstand the losses. the second thing you need come he fire wall, to make
3:40 pm
sure you have a mechanism big enough to stop contagion to other countries. and there will be discussions about how big it is to be, but the answer is bigger than is currently proposed, and they need to keep working on it. >> i agree with the hon. lady's approach. we should use these opportunities as the euro changes to maximize the advantage. we have to be clear, we do not know how much of a treaty change will be proposed by the germans and others, how expensive it
3:41 pm
will be. we will have to look very closely to see what is right for britain in response. i can say that there has been one treaty change proposed, and we enacted an important role. >> [unintelligible] we underestimated the world crisis from endeavor as a and as a result avoided the european crisis. [inaudible] >> i have not for one minute underestimated the crisis we based in europe and across the world economy. sadly the crisis has been made worse by the vast overspending that took place under which the government of which he was a member. >> the prime minister confirms the last general election, the
3:42 pm
conservative manifesto committed ourselves to seeking powers from europe on economic and social policies, but no where with in the manifesto was there a commitment to seek an in out referendum, and nowhere was there a recommendation to seek commitment to the european union. >> he does make an informed point. we get a clear manifesto agreement to seek return of important powers from the european union, like the social employment legislation. i remain committed to achieving that. i think it is in the british national interest to achieve that, but he does make informed point, which it was not part of our manifesto, was not part of our policy to seek referendum that included an in out option. i completely respect there are members, not just on this side of the house, but on the labor side, that have long wanted and in out option.
3:43 pm
that is not our policy, and that is the reason why we're having this debate on a monday, on a proper motion in a proper way, because this is not some side issue, it is an important issue. before, i believe in the idea of parliament. what parliament decides matters, and that is why this government is taking the motion seriously. a few weeks ago, my constituent explained those they have hired for from libya, and they explained the key desire to get infrastructure projects as soon as possible. can the prime minister tell us how you are going to go about making sure that happens? >> i completely understand why he raises this issue. it is important to the constituents and important for british investment to libya.
3:44 pm
i can tell him libyan -- lord green has already held an investor conference and i recommend he contact that minister. i will make sure that happens so we can help them with the important work they do. >> thank you. many of my constituents have contacted me over the past few days to say they did not have confidence in politics because of the last government refusing to give them a referendum on the lisbon treaty. what message can my friend did made that i can take back to the constituents? >> i completely understand their concerns. just because the last government failed to get our referendum, it does not mean we should vote tonight on a referendum for an option that was not in any of our manifestoes. the reassurance i would give to his constituents is the thing that people care about europe,
3:45 pm
constraining the european union, the government is doing all of those things, and there will be more to come. >> did i hear the prime minister correctly earlier when he said there should be a referendum on the treaty? in the life of the foreign secretary's well rehearsed opposition to that, can he say exactly when he changed his mind? >> i have always felt that. the last bill was clear. under our bill, any of those treaties would have triggered a referendum. that is the point. and i hope labor will commit to this legislation. then it will mean it in the government tries to give away powers from the house, they have to ask this house first. >> has the prime minister noted that while this government has ruled out joining the euro, it is the continued policy of her majesty's opposition that is leading it? >> it was a an interesting
3:46 pm
series of interviews over the weekend by the leader of the opposition, as well as saying if he was prime minister for a long enough, he would like to get us back into the euro again. the other thing he said, he was asked whether brussels had too much power. he was very clear, no, i do not think brussels has too much power. that is the position of the labor party. wrong about the euro, wrong about brussels, wrong about everything. >> i share the prime minister's optimism, and i would pay tribute to the role of our armed forces have played in the process. however, is the prime minister as concerned as i am about the allegation of execution of any human being, even as muammar gaddafi? is he reassured there will be restored role of law and proper democracy in that country? >> the hon. lady makes an
3:47 pm
important point. we also the pictures on our televisions and newspapers, and they were not pleasant images. everyone understands that is not what should have happened. the should have ended in the trial, in him facing justice. as i said earlier, there will be an inquiry, and i think it is a born they carry this out properly. >> could i respectfully disagree with the prime minister's idea that there are no lessons from libya. the lessons from libya is not what you should do, but how you do it and when. >> i did not say there are no lessons to learn. i think there are lessons to learn. the government is counting on a lessons-learned process. we will be announcing the key results of that. the point you make about what you are able to do is absolutely vital. what i was trying to say is i
3:48 pm
think you have to be careful not to say because of libya was successful in this way, you can read that across to every other proposed intervention. you cannot. i believe there is a bit of stepped in as some -- skepticism you should bring to this debate before you embark on them. >> is it now this prime minister's position that he could accept substantial german- led teams to the lisbon treaty without the referendum he promised the british people? >> from this house of commons to brussels, there is a referendum guarantee. that is absolutely vital people understand that. that is the promise we make. we do not yet know whether a treaty change will be proposed. we do not yet know what it will be consisted of. the point i make is we will use
3:49 pm
that opportunity to further the national interest. >> mr. speaker, this marks to very different degrees of political integration amongst eu member states. does the prime minister consider the referendum and other eu countries this development, alongside the passage of the eu at this year? a more meaningful veto before on changes as a result of a treaty changes and the impact on our own country. >> i think my hon. friend is right. that is the assurance people seek, the use of not change the rules of the game, should not give away powers that are not yours to give away. the british people should have a block on that. that is what we put into place. no government should rule out putting questions into a referendum. that is not what i'm saying. i am saying the bedrock in a
3:50 pm
parliamentary democracy is to you should not get powers away from parliament without asking people first. , canead of tonight's vote the prime minister tell us what he has taken from the former prime minister, john major? >> i am sorry. and he can defend the device, because he used to work for him. my advice would be leave it alone. [laughter] >> mr. neil carmichael. >> with large insignificantly- importance by chains streaming across europe, does the prime minister agree with me that this -- across this country we need to see a further strengthening of markets to deliver more trade? to go my friend makes an important point. -- >> my friend makes an important point, because we still have not completed the
3:51 pm
single market and services. that is one of our strongest industries, and it is countries like germany that have not completed the single market. i know the people are bored of hearing the agenda of completing the single market services, liberalizing energy markets, the regulating in europe, but if we want to raise the growth rate and raise our game, this is where we and our british national interest. >> i want to congratulate my hon. friend on his leadership. he assured me he will continue to work with the president of france and others on the u.n. security council to address the security situation in libya. >> i can assure whenever the disagreement on economic policy, and by and large we are united on it, i will work very closely on foreign affairs and defense issues. i think there is a real coming together of french and british national interest. as i said earlier, where we do
3:52 pm
sometimes have disagreement, we should not be frightened. >> the u.s. house will dabble in shortly to discuss blocking european union regulation of airplane emissions. while we wait for that, a quick look at this morning's " washington journal" and federal education funding. >> it is a pretty broad range to determine whether a child has a disability or not. it could be something like a
3:53 pm
learning disability to something very severe likes it very parole policy or down sistrum -- likes palsy or downs r downcerebral syndrome. i think all of history is relatively recent. the disabilities education act was created only in 1975, which is pretty current. it has been contentious kind of ever since. there was a promise back in 1975 that the federal government would kick in a lot of the money to pay for all of these kids, and that is the promise that has not been killed just yet. it is a huge program. it is $11.5 billion this year. that is sent to states from the federal government.
3:54 pm
special education services are typically more expensive like language therapy or physical therapy or extra time to do certain subjects or more intensive support. there is a little bit of friction with school districts and we do not have the money and the federal government not taking in its share. some states have pushed back and said we will cut the federal education spending. >> our guest has covered education for most of the last decade. to write special education, health, nutrition and school violence among other topics. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen to weigh in with your questions and
3:55 pm
comments. we're talking about special education funding. there is a line for republicans. democrats, 737-001 . we have a separate line, fourth line, just for parents and teachers. hopefully we can get that number on the screen. there it is. lot deeper at some of the numbers, at least for this upcoming year. the education department for 2012 is asking for $12.9 billion for special education and rehabilitative services. tell us more about the request. >> that would be a little bit of an increase over the current 11.5 billion that the government is kicking in. there are some caveats. the most current stuff going on, the current continuing resolution that is good through
3:56 pm
november 18 actually ended up cutting special education funding. some people think a little bit and certainly. it is about $129 million that was cut. when congress is passing the two -- passing 2012 budget, they keep seeing these levels, it will be a cut. some are looking for that money to be restored. especially because the senate and the budget proposal has wanted to keep spending levels. they're not looking for cuts there. the house is proposing a pretty big increase but at the expense of other education programs. maybe the administration will get what it wants, but there needs to be corrective action first period to go help us break down these numbers a little bit more. 12.7 would be grants to state. >> there are different formulas based on the number of students
3:57 pm
they have come at the types of disabilities students have, which generally if you have a disability like down's syndrome those require more intensive support and services. kids may be in school until the age of 22. based on what children are actually located in your district, the number of teachers needed for the therapy will be providing care and there are some state services built into that as well. >> 3.5 services would be for rehabilitation. to a record $49 million in special education, national activities. -- 2.49 million in special education, national activities 30 million for something called [inaudible] . >> i do not know, so i do not want to say. i have not studied all of the
3:58 pm
line items as closely as i should have appeared . >> 5 billion for mentoring for those that have intellectual abilities -- intellectual disabilities. i>> this would be a small percentage increase. for the special education community, any increase would be a good one. the long-term goal is to have a 40% special education spending coming from the federal government. we are a long way from that. it is only 16% right now. there have been proposals for how to get to the 40%. it would take years. it is kind of up in the air. >> what is the general feeling out there about the figure and how much might really be needed? >> the 40% is $35 billion.
3:59 pm
that is supposed to cover 30% of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. school districts would have to provide a baseline for all of their students, classrooms and buses and that sort of thing. this would be on top of the extra services special education students need. the senate proposal is to keep the funding level, come and the house is to increase spending. there is the thought out there that special education is something that is important, and it should not be cut certainly, but it really remains to be seen. there is a fight that will happen with education spending, because it depends on what other programs will be cut in exchange for reducing special education funding. >> if they cannot act by november, we are hearing about all of these truckers across the board. should we assume this is part of the potential cuts? >> definitely.
4:00 pm
there are areas of potential for education programs to be kept in a much more detrimental way. i think states will probably not be happy to hear hear this. you have a special education students and their needs do not change dramatically. for you to continue to provide this kind of service local agency, they will have to pick up the tab. >> we have a lot more to learn. our guest -- rockville, maryland. a student. >> i grew up through the school system, with an occupational therapist. by works -- my mother worked in delaware. and i would just as much like
4:01 pm
for them to be certain about who they choose for the instructors, as long as this -- as well as the supervisors and the administrators. this is where we are failing. we are spending money in certain areas. and these areas will be malnourished just because the money is not there. >> can you talk about who is teaching this? >> my experience as a student, and other students, -- we were never really fully paid attention to. there is a bridge to the rest of society. everyone settles -- and this is not fair.
4:02 pm
>> are there rules and guidelines and regulations attached to things like teachers? >> this is about the larger debate with teacher quality and teacher information. no child left behind with these qualified teacher regulations, and this has been applied a little bit unevenly. and there are more students with disabilities. and there are the traditional regular class is that are now -- classes that would encrease the -- increase the challenge. if we look at the elementary act that was defeated in the senate, there was the proposed amendment
4:03 pm
to do away with the quality standards for special education that is likely to come back. there be educators, and the teachers community, they would like to see more money spent on quality and improving educative quality. >> and how are those teachers educated now? >> there is a track for special educators and general educators that some people would like to see done away with. they need as much information about disabilities and who they will say in their classrooms, as the special education teachers. the apology to be a little bit more integrated. >> maryland democrat, good morning. >> thank you for having me. my question is kind of a comment.
4:04 pm
i was on the school board for 14 years, from 1985-1999. a couple of things happened. the first was the prison populations increased. this took a lot of money. and then there was the special education. there is no wiggle room in special education. there were times when teachers were laid off, but retired special education teachers. it may be to the end of the school year, and the 16th person came along for the special education class. this may have changed the numbers for each pupil. how much to the parents see the
4:05 pm
schools not doing as well for the regular education students and turning to other things. this is kind of an irony. and the path for special education. i think there has to be some recognition. there needs to be some wiggle room. we were talking about things like teachers, they had to take off programs in case they had an medically fragile student. these are the kinds of things that people are very passionate about.
4:06 pm
i think that maybe -- we need to have some leeway. >> there is the informal guidance, and for a long time, and the the one time penalty, to lower the amount that they spend going forward. this is supposed to be very stable. this would be their case. and this is contentious. you have the parent of a fragile child, and there is a public education, if these kids are
4:07 pm
educated well, they will be productive citizens, if there segregated or less well educated. >> going to wisconsin, brian is on the line. >> my question is that the programs, is there the finding, and the adult experiencing this, but the secondary level. is this totally separate. let's go to the guests.
4:08 pm
>> once you turn 22 this no longer applies. i am not too familiar with this. >> from shelbyville, tenn.. >> richard, are you there? i am from shelbyville, tenn.. this boy is a twin with spinal issues. they allowed -- 10 years old. they had to put one of them in a chair using a wheel chair.
4:09 pm
i didn't know -- how that would work, at all. >> what would you like to ask the guest, specifically? >> well, will there be anything that they forget with the systems? >> i am not quite sure there is enough information there. is there anything you'd like to ask? >> that's not wrong. his mother teaches school. his father -- at the church. >> there is not a lot of information there. it may speak to how people can find out.
4:10 pm
>> they should provide this, going class to class. the iet. that should be addressed at the school level. i am not sure if that answers the question. >> $12.9 billion is the current proposal for the rehabilitation services. this is why 2012, the current funding. there is $11.50 billion. and they're trying to average this out, with $750.
4:11 pm
this is per child. what kind of accountability or assessment under these programs are required? >> this is an elaborate process, starting with finding the kids. finding the students who need services. and they have to go on. and then make sure that they're being provided in the same way. the parents believe that the schools are not doing enough. and this is monitoring by the federal government.
4:12 pm
we want that this would be tested annually, in reading and math. there is some flexibility there. they not have to take the same test in some places. taking thatthey're test, it is not clear if they want their children to be pushed as hard as anyone else. they believe their kids are being tested and appropriately. and so -- >> this is an interesting question has to do not know will benefit from the special education.
4:13 pm
>> their work with disabilities and i think that there is evidence that children -- they are graduating from high school, and this does not happen as nearly as frequently. and i do not know if this is so much science, or if this is kids moving on -- >> gloria is on the rise from weatherford, texas. -- line from weatherford, texas. >> i am almost 88 years old and i have kept up with the educational process. my home town was corpus christi.
4:14 pm
the grandchildren have been raised in san antonio and were in special education. they start going to a meeting with the teachers. at one of the children -- one of the teachers said to her, i did not understand why the children are in special education. there were going to corpus christi. you tell them what the teacher told you. how the test this properly. and i work with people with
4:15 pm
cerebral palsy. he was so crippled, that they don't have in the state of texas. he would not walk or do anything like that. i have not seen him since i was planning to move. and suddenly i get a little note. and he had some sort of a computer he could blow into. a little message, "thank you, gloria.'
4:16 pm
>> the house is coming in now for a debate on seven bills dealing with federal lands and othe rissues -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 441 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 103, h.r. 441, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to issue permits for a microhydroproject in wilderness areas within the boundaries of dinali national park and reserve from tourism and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano,
4:17 pm
will each control 20 minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials under the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 441, the act, will authorize the secretary of interior to issue permits for a microhydro project within the denali national park. it will facilitate a small land exchange between the national park service which owns and operates the facilities that will take advantage of opposed microhydro project. at the request of the national park service, this will allow the park service to admit similar projects that may exist in the future. roughly home six aches of of land will be affected. it's one of the 13 alaska national native regional corporations formed under the alaska native land claim
4:18 pm
settlement act. currently the facilities at can titch in a which are located in the 90man mile park road are operated off of diesel fuel. not being connected to any grid system, the road house must produce all of its energy on site. this means trucking thousands of gallons of diesel fuel over the park road. injuries created by this microhydro project could cut the road house's diesel usage in half and reduce the need of these trips. down the road at the new visitor center, the national park service operates a similar project to great success and the road house seems to take advantage of similar technology to rid their reliance on costly diesel fuel. working with both the national park service and we have before us a bill that was crafted in a truly collaborative fashion that is a win-win that lowers the fossil fuel use in the park and lowers the cost for the lodge operators and protects park resources. i urge the adoption of the measure and reserve the balance
4:19 pm
of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. nap thap thank you, -- mrs. napolitano:, thank you, mr. speaker. i really must commend my colleague and my friend, mr. young, on introduction of this piece of legislation. as we're looking for more individual entities to go to green energy and save fossil fuel -- in fact it saves many other things we've talked about in our committees and subcommittees so i'm glad to see this, mr. young. we fully support the project designated to reduce the pollution cost by the use of fossil fuels. in this instance, excuse me, a small hydroelectric project will be used to supply some of the power currently being generated by a diesel generator for a back country lodge.
4:20 pm
the project will reduce the number of trips needed to haul diesel fuel into the park. hopefully the national park service can find many other units where cleaner energy technology can be employed and thus save everybody some heartache. pardon me. i commend again my colleague, my friend, for introduction of this piece of legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i just urge the passage of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. we support h.r. 441 and i also send back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 441 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
4:21 pm
2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 295 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 295, a bill to amend a hydrographic services improvement act of 1998, to authorize funds to acquire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services specific to the arctic for safe navigation. delineating the united states extended continental shelf and the monitoring and description of coastal changes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask
4:22 pm
unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill unconsideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 295 would use existing authorized appropriation and hydrographic survey improvement act of 1998 for fiscal year 2012 to fund surveys and mapping activities in the arctic. currently these hydrographic data, excuse me, currently based hydrographic data in the arctic is inadequate and not sufficient to support future marine activities. the last survey having occurred more than 60 years ago after world war ii and with other areas not having been surveyed since the 1800, there's a lot of work to do. as we all know, the arctic has become the focus of many of its surrounding nations to determine ownership of the
4:23 pm
seabed and any potential energy sources in the area. in addition to a lack of sea ice, opening up shipping routes to vessels. h.r. 295 is an effort to move this process forward. this bill is necessary to emphasize the need for the easy to collect hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services in the arctic region. last congress similar legislation passed out of the house by a roll call of 420-0 and this year i also urge adoption of the measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 295 as amended which would amend the hydrographic services improvement act of 1998 to authorize appropriations specifically for the acquisition of hydrographic data in coastal change analysis in the arctic ocean. again, i commend my colleague for this forward-looking piece of legislation.
4:24 pm
we sometimes ignore scientific evidence that will help us be able to gauge where the rest of the world is going to be in regard to changes in the atmosphere, etc. and scientific evidence does show melting arctic ice sea -- sea ice, sorry, is drastically changing the arctic landscape. the collection of data authorized by this bill would help noaa delineate the u.s. extended continental shelf, monitor coastal and ice pack changes and also provide information so critical to international commerce, to our national defense and to our natural resource management in that area. i again commend and thank my colleague, congressman young from alaska, for introducing the bill and i do reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i have no requests for any speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. nap thap thank you, mr. speaker. i also yield back the balance
4:25 pm
of my time, since i do not have any speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 295 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title of h.r. 441 is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1160 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1160, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to convey the mckinney lake national fish hatchery to the state of north carolina and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano,
4:26 pm
each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill unconsideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, this bill would transfer title to 422 acres of land for the fish and wildlife service, from the fish and wildlife to the north carolina wildlife resources commission. the commission has been effectively managed since 1998, on an understanding with the service. they have been providing angers with 150,000 catfish each year. both the state and the obama administration testified in support of this conveyance. i note that congress has previously conveyed 10 national fish hatcheries to various states and knew miss it -- municipalities. i do adopt -- urge the adoption of this measure and reserve the
4:27 pm
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: thank you, sir. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1160, as amended, which would convey the mckinney lake national fish hatchery to the north carolina wildlife resources commission for the purposes of fish and wildlife management. this would allow for the continued operation of the hatchery and the important role it plays in the state's urban fishing program and in addressing the restoration or recovery needs of aquatic resources held in public trust. and as we've heard before, with the warming of the oceans, we are in critical need of helping the -- conserve our fishing industry. to me this is a critical piece of legislation and i do commend my colleague, congressman kissel from north carolina, for introducing his bill which is supported by his state, his
4:28 pm
administration and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i reserve -- have another speaker, do you not? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. nap thap thank you, mr. speaker -- mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i do yield to mr. kissel from north carolina for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kissell: i would like to thank, mr. speaker, my colleague for yielding time. i do rise in support, strong support of h.r. 1160, the mckinney lake national fish hatchery conveyance act. i'd like to thank the chairman, ranking member and staff of the natural resources committee for helping us put this bill together. also want to count -- thank those from the north carolina wildlife resources commission and those from the u.s. fish and wildlife service. it also helped my staff in putting this together. it said the mckinney lake fish hatchery is a 422 acres located in south central north carolina
4:29 pm
, near hoffman, north carolina. it consists of 23 ponds with the main lake being mckinney lake. it covers the water resources there cover 18 acres. this effort was first started in the mid 1990's but due to structural problems on the dam of mckinney lake itself, the conveyance was unable to be completed and as also mentioned there's been a series of m.o.a.'s between the u.s. fish and wildlife service and the north carolina wildlife commission. in the meantime, those structural problems have been satisfied, they're no longer an issue and we're ready to proceed with this. it has been bipartisan support, with 10 of our colleagues from north carolina co-sponsoring this bill and both senators from north carolina have signed off on similar legislation in the senate. the prime purpose and use of the fish hatchery now is in the
4:30 pm
community fishing program that's sponsored by the north carolina wildlife resources commission, taking fingerling size fish that are grown here in the hatchery throughout north carolina to ponds and lakes and communities and allowing people from north carolina who may not have access otherwise to come in and enjoy the pleasures of fishing, especially proud of the efforts that are made for those that might have trouble with handicaps, it allows them access to fishing and also programs designed to get our children involved and to grow up knowing the pleasures of fishing. once again this is a win-win situation for all those involved. i ask my colleagues to support this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady wish to yield her time?
4:31 pm
mrs. napolitano: i have no further speakers, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1160, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are -- the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise will rise and remain standing until counted -- and will remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass
4:32 pm
h.r. 461 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 461, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal features of the electric distribution system to the south utah valley electric service district, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 461, sponsored by congressman jason chaffetz of utah, conveys the conveyance lines to a local entity. it involves an ownership confusion that will lead to
4:33 pm
more efficient management of the project. so-called title transfers is a promising one. they place projects under local control. they reduce federal paperwork and provide instant ownership equity to leverage private financing dollars. these benefits will all be achieved without a cost to the american taxpayer. this bill is an excellent example of a win-win scenario. i urge adoption of the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, h.r. 461, as the majority mentioned, will transfer title of an electric distribution system bureau of reclamation to the south utah valley electric service. the distribution system already operates and maintains the existing facilities.
4:34 pm
the act would eliminate the bureau of reclamation's obligations to oversee the maintenance of this distribution system and to administer the associated lands. the strawberry reclamation project is a great example of the important role the federal government has played in helping to spur the economy of local communities in the west. without reclamations' involvement, years ago it's highly unlikely that we would be able to transfer these facilities to the local entities today. so i commend my friend and colleague, congressman chaffetz from utah, for supporting this important piece of legislation that helps the area so well. i yield back the balance of my time. i'm sorry. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. mr. young: mr. speaker, at it this time i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, for whatever time he may use. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 461, the south utah valley electric
4:35 pm
conveyance act of 2011. i'd like to thank the chair and the ranking member of the natural resources committee for advancing this bill to the floomplet it wouldn't have happened without good support and consideration on both sides of the aisle. for that i'm very grateful. the south utah valley electric conveyance act would have a distribution system that was sponsored by the strawberry valley project. construction of the strawberry valley project began in 1906 and currently includes the strawberry dam and reservoir, diversion dams, canales and a 206-mile distribution system. since 1906, local and private partners have been involved in the construction, management and ownership of the strawberry valley project. currently the nonfederal south utah valley special service district owns the district. the bureau of reclamation claimed that theyry mained titled to the united states.
4:36 pm
this discrepancy exists due to the construction that occurred before and after 1940 repayment agreement. the bureau has not yet quantified how much this system had it actually owned but predicted that an inventory would take multiple years and be very costly to taxpayers. the south utah electric conveyance act would allow transfer to allow this ownership uncertainty by transferring title to the entire system to the district the bureau would divest itself of future liability while providing the service with greater certainty and autonomy in day-to-day and long-term operations. title transfers are noncontroversial and common practice. since 1996, portions of 26 bureau of reclamation projects had been transferred to private projects. they benefit both parties. when the natural resources committee moved this to the house of representatives, it stated, it benefits both local communities and the federal government, end quote.
4:37 pm
further, legislation is in line with the bureau of reclamation's 1995 framework for transfer of title. this policy documented outlines criteria needed for the transfers in order to move forward. number one, the federal treasury and the taxpayers' interest mississippi be -- mississippi be maintained. agreements must be protected. the native american trust responsibilities must be met. number five, treaty obligations and international agreements must be fulfilled. and number six, the public aspects of the project must be protected. the south valley utah electric conveyance act is in line with the bureau's framework. i'd like to thank chairman hastings and the natural resources committee for advancing this bill to the floor and help from both sides of the aisle. the south valley electric conveyance act is both beneficial to the federal government and the localities. i ask my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my
4:38 pm
time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from alaska wish to reserve? mr. young: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i have no speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mrs. napolitano: i do -- mr. young: i have no other speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 461 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska eek recognition? -- seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 818. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 163, h.r. 818, a bill
4:39 pm
sdrektsdrekt -- drictdrict -- to direct the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal features of the electric distribution system to the south utah valley electric service district, and for other purposes -- a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the united states and the uintah water conservancy district. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: h.r. 818 would aloy prepayment that can benefit local water utilities because it relieves of interest costs and some regulatory burdens. this concept is similar to giving a family to prepay their mortgage and other debts to save compounded interest costs. it's also in the best interest of the american taxpayers since it will facilitate the revenues
4:40 pm
to the u.s. treasury. i urge the adoption of this measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, h.r. 818 sponsored by our friend and colleague, congressman matheson, would allow the uintah water conservancy district in utah to prepay, that means to pay ahead of time, for anybody that really understands the prepay, the debt owed to the federal government for the construction of the unit. at a time when our country is watching our dollars and cents, h.r. 818 is the legislation that does make very much credible sense. the water district would have the option to pay their loan early. what a nofble concept. and -- novel concept. and have lower interest rates
4:41 pm
to their customers. what a novel concept. the federal government would be able to use that for debt reduction or whatever else is needed. i do commend congressman matheson of utah for his efforts in moving this legislation forward. identical legislation passed the house unanimously in the 111th congress. i ask that my colleagues support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mrs. napolitano: i yield to congressman matheson from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. matheson: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 818 would district the secretary of interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the united states and the uintah water conservancy district. i'd like to thank chairman hastings and mcclintock and ranking member hastings and napolitano for moving this bill through the resources committee. this is a commonsense bill that promotes commonsense responsibility. allowing the water conservancy
4:42 pm
district to pay its debt obligations back early and in a timely manner is what we like to call a win-win. it's financially beneficial to local and federal governments alike. it would allow the local government to self-govern, be able to pay off their loan early and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest payments. it would lower costs to water users, very important as we grow out of the current economic recession and have ways to have much-needed development. it would allow prepayment to the federal treasury. as we encourage best practices and good government policies, allowing for prepayment is a good model to follow. in addition, i believe this legislation provides a good opportunity to help rural communities prioritize and implement best practices to utilize scarce resources in an effort to meet rural water demands and a -- in a
4:43 pm
cost-effective and fiscally responsible manner. i'd like to point there is prepayment for repayment contracts. h.r. 818 is similar to legislation used by the central utah water converveansy district which allow for repayment of the prepayment contracts for the bonnaville unit. it saved hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, allowing them to consider time and cost savings to managing an important resource in my state. this bill, h.r. 818, the same bill passed the house unanimously in the 111th congress. it's also this congress been reintroduced in the senate by my-count parts in the utah delegation, senators hatch and lee. i urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill once again. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i have no further speakers, but i would urge my colleagues to vote for this very important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time.
4:44 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 818. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, and the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 320. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 55, h.r. 320, a bill to designate a distinguished flying cross national memorial at the march field air museum in riverside, california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the
4:45 pm
gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. young yng i want to thank congressman -- mr. young: i want to thank the congress mother for introducing this bill in honor of the members of the armed forces who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. a new memorial was dedicated october 27, 2010, as marshfield air museum. with the legislation that the memorial will be designated as the distinguished flying cross national memorial. this designation honors those patriots and does not require or permit the expenditure of any federal dollars. i urge the adoption of the measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. napolitano: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the
4:46 pm
gentlelady is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. the recipients of the distinguished flying cross include captain charles lindberg, commander richard byrd, amelia earhart and captain mark kelly and you might know who captain mark kelly is because he had his medal pinned by his wife, our dear colleague, representative gabby giffords. all of the men and women who have received this medal are american heroes and the marshfield air museum is to be commended for their efforts to establish a memorial honoring these individuals. on our side we would likely support some federal funding for the project but knowing our status on our budgetary problems and our friends on the other side have written the bill to prohibit federal support. nevertheless we do wholeheartedly support h.r. 320. i commend my friend and colleague from my home state of
4:47 pm
california for introducing this piece of legislation, to recognize all our heroes and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 320, a bill to designate a national distinguished flying cross memorial in riverside, california. i thank my friend, mr. young, and mrs. napolitano, for managing the bill today. i'm honored to represent the empire chapel ter of the distinguished flying cross society which is the primary sponsor of this memorial. the memorial honors all current and former members of the armed forces who have awarded -- have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. in the 111th congress i introduced h.r. 2788 which passed the house unanimously and today i stand again in support of h.r. 320 which would designate a memorial at marshfield air museum as the distinguished flying cross
4:48 pm
national memorial. the legislation is supported by the distinguished flying cross society. the military officer's association of america, the air force association, the air force sergeant's association, the association of naval aviation, the vietnam helicopters pilots association, the china, burma, indian veterans association. i'd like to point out the language in the bill specifically states that the designation shall not be construed to require or permit federal funds to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial. funds have been and will continue to be raised through private means for these purposes. the distinguished flying cross recipients have received this prestigious medal for their heroism, extraordinary achievement, while participating in aerial flight while serving in any capacity with the u.s. armed forces. there are many well-known people that have played a vital role in the history of military aviation and have received the award. as was previously mentioned,
4:49 pm
this renowned group includes captain charles l. lindberg, former president george h.w. bush, brigadier general jimmy doolittle, general curtis lamay, senator mccain, jimmy stewart, admiral jim stckto, just to name a few. the base is adjacent to the location of the memorial of march air museum. visiters are able to witness active operational air units, provide support for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. which is an appropriate setting that honors the many aveaters who have distinguished themselves by -- aveaters who have distinguished themselves by these performed and aerial flights. i'd like to thank those who worked tirelessly to make sure this memorial is built and properly designated, in honor of the distinguished aviators have thank have served this great nation. particularly i'd like to recognize jim chaplain, his
4:50 pm
late wife trish, distinguished flying cross society president chuck sweeney and the society's historian, dr. barry lamben. who have been instrument nal this effort. again, i hope you'll join me in supporting the designation of the national distinguished flying cross memorial at the marchfield air museum and support h.r. 320 and thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alaska wish to reserve? mr. young: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california voiced. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. and i just want to urge our -- both sides to support h.r. 320 but at the same time i'd also like to thank our majority and our minority -- not only our members but the staff, they've done a very wonderful job in helping us put this stuff together. and putting up with us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.
4:51 pm
320. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. mr. young: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are in question -- are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18
4:52 pm
the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 2594. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 151, h.r. 2594, a bill to prohibit operations of civil aircraft of the united states from participating in the european union's emissions trading scheme and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill before us, h.r. 2594. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include in the congressional record the exchange of letters between the committee on foreign affairs
4:53 pm
and the committee on transportation and infrastructure concerning h.r. 2594. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: i rise in support of the bill before us, h.r. 2594, the european union emissions trading scheme prohibition act of 2011. starting in january of 2012 the european union will begin to unilaterally apply its emissions trading scheme to civil aviation operators landing in or departing from one of the e.u. member states. under the emissions trading scheme, e.u. member states will require international air carriers to -- and operators to pay for emission allowances and in some cases penalties for carbon emissions. the scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those parts of the flight outside the e.u. air space.
4:54 pm
for instance, a flight leaving los angeles for london, taxes would be lev idea not just on the portion of the flight over the united nations, but also -- united kingdom, but also for the portions of the flight over the united states sovereign soil and the high seas. on september 30, 21 countries, including the u.s., signed a joint declaration against the e.u. emissions trading scheme in new delhi, india. despite serious legal issues of objections by the international community, the e.u. is pressing ahead with its plans. the bill before us will prohibit u.s. aircraft operators from participating in this illegal scheme put forward unilaterally by the e.u. the european union's unilateral application of the scheme onto u.s. flag operators without the consent of the united states government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the chicago convention and the u.s.-e.u. air transportation agreement.
4:55 pm
there are also concerns that the emissions trading scheme is nothing more than a revenue razor for e.u. member states, so there's no requirement that e.u. member states must use the funds for anything related to the reduction of carbon dioxide projection but i -- by this civil aviation sector. the emissions trading scheme will extract money from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in nextgen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft. just two proven methods for improving environmental performance. in addition, the scheme would introduce a new commodities market into the cost structure for airlines. given the havoc, fluctuating oil markets have played on the u.s. airline industry, doesn't make sense to subject the struggling airline industry to another commodities market that is vulnerable to speculation. according to the air transportation associations testimony before the aviation subcommittee this july, the extraction of capital from the
4:56 pm
aviation system is envisioned under the e.u. admissions trading scheme could threaten as many as 78,000, -- 78,500 u.s. jobs. this is unacceptable. finally, there are considerable concerns about the proliferation of e.u. member states' ecocharges being put in place on top of the emissions trading scheme. questions have arisen as to whether the ecocharges are consistent with u.s. member states' obligations under international law and whether some of these charges may in effect be double charges for the same emissions the e.u. intends to regulate under the emissions trading scheme. given all of these concerns, we believe that the european union needs to slow down, carefully weighing their plans to include international civil aviation in their emissions trading scheme. we believe a better approach is to work within the international civil aviation community through the u.n. international civil aviation organization, to establish
4:57 pm
consensus-driven emissions to reduce emissions. however, because the e.u. has shown no interest in working with the international community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we're moving this bipartisan legislation forward to ensure u.s. operators will not participate in their unilateral and questionable scheme. the obama administration and republicans and democrats here in the house have recognized the troubled approach taken by the europeans and have expressed ardent opposition. this legislation is one of many avenues the united states can take, concurrent with others, to resolve this conflict. to be sure, the united states government will use all tools at its disposal to hold our aviation interests harmless from the european's unfair and illegal scheme. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i reserve the balance of my
4:58 pm
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2594, a bill that will protect u.s. airlines, their employees and their passengers from the european union's plan to unfairly charge u.s. airline for emissions in u.s. air space. president obama has taken a strong stand against the e.u. emissions trading scheme -- scam on the grounds that it is inconsistent with international aviation law and practice. additionally airlines and labor groups opposed it because it would impose new and unjustifiable costs on the industry and destroy american jobs. climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. working through the international civic aviation organization, the united states
4:59 pm
have committed to find a global solution to address aviation emissions based on agreement and cooperations. however the e.u. has decided to move forward with a go-it-alone approach that is contrary to international law and violates u.s. sovereignty by charging u.s. airlines for all emissions from flights between the united states and europe. even the portion of flights over our own air space and return the revenue to european countries without any specific assurances regarding how the revenue will be used. that is unacceptable. this bill will protect u.s. airlines from unjust liability under the e.u. emissions trading system. it sends a strong message from congress that we do not support what the e.u. is doing

59 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on