tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 29, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
not in the ground where you would really prefer them to be with this design, is that a design issue being rectified as we look forward? >> again, in the location of the pools is something that won't change for those sites that are out there. the pools are designed to which stand seismic events -- withstand seismic events and be able to maintain their integrity for a seismic event, and that appears to be the case in fukushima. the damage to the pools appears to have come more from the hydrogen explokeses which collect in the building that's more readily accessible to the pools and when that explosion happened it damaged a lot of the structure. . if you can deal with that hydrogen you can reduce the likely hoods of losing their integrity. >> are you still worried about them. >> absolutely.
and, again, looking forward, it's something we'll look at. as jim mentioned some of the things the task force looked forward to good instrumentation. we will take a look at the question we should require more fuel to be moved from the storage to dry storage. you don't need the water. now, it can only be done after the fuel is thermally cooled so it's not physically hot from a temperature perspective but after that it's possible there will be more of a benefit to move it into dry storage. we don't really know. the data can't really decide. it's almost like a photo finish in a way. you have to look very closely to figure out which is safer. we may learn things from fukushima daiichi. we'll put in place the regulations to do that if we
need to. >> i know some people don't think it's a photo finish. let's take a question from over here. >> i'd like to ask two questions if you'll indulge me. the first question is -- i've read in the media if they would have been more speedy dumping sea water into the sdast remember it would have been mitigated. i want to know if that's indeed the case. if we need to know how to deal with total and prolonged blackout if something happens in the united states we could mitigate a disaster. my second question is, i understand there is a controversy about low levels of radiation increase one's physical susceptibility to cancer. i wonder if fukushima has settled that question. >> well, in terms of -- remind
me the first question was -- remind me the first question. >> is it true that -- >> sea water -- >> in putting the sea water in. >> all of these things will come out in time and we'll have to analyze and look at the situation but there was discussion i believe, and i haven't seen all the details of the interactions that the japanese utility had with their regulation with the government about the time it took for the sea water injection to happen. i am not really in position right now to say if we had done that earlier had things been different? in a situation like this it's getting water in the reactor core. when you lose power what you lose is your ability to circulate water and to move water around. the conditions of the site were very difficult and very challenging. it was very difficult to know exactly what was going on and
what was happening. so it's just hard to say right now if, you know, that had happened earlier would we have -- i don't know. that's something people are going to spend a lot of time and money to try to figure out. we have some sophisticated modeling tools to model how these reactor course behave in certain scenario. one of the things i'm sure people will run is early sea water injection. you are putting this water and it just evap waits. you are going to have to release some amounts of radiation eventually through that -- otherwise you build up too much pressure and you eventually have the kind of failures that ultimately appears did happen. with some of these pressure boundaries being failed. but -- so essentially, you all experienced this phenomenon. you boil water, eventually you can build up stuff that's left
over. if you ever had a humidifier, it gets salts and stuff caked on to it. all of the salt that was put in is still in there. they're circulating water now. some of it is dissolving and getting taken out. before they were able to use the process that they use now, all that water being pumped in was salt and the water was evaporating and leaving that salt behind. it's not clear what impact that would have. there is the possibility that salt was then -- could be if it was going on longer could be blocking the ability of water to flow within the core and ultimately get to the places where it needed to have -- to cool. so it's just hard to speculate right now whether that would have made things better. it's certainly something i know people will look at. the second part of the question -- >> whether this will give us information about being able to say anything about health risks
of very low levels of radiation. >> yeah. i don't think so because i don't think that people who were in these communities, you know, in the early phases and certainly in the general public we don't have good data on what their actual exposures were. we have good indication of what the ground deposition was and how much radiation was there but we don't know if you were, for instance, you inside your home, did you go outside, it's very, very hard to say what the doses were to the individuals. now, the workers and as richard mentioned in the early phase there were challenges with getting -- monitoring -- radiation monitoring equipment to all the workers so the records may not be very, very accurate for those workers. more than likely the workers will provide information. the best source of information for low levels of exposure is really in the united states and it's the radiation workers, the nuclear professionals who work
in the industry. and i believe there is efforts right now. surprisingly to me no one is looking at this data and done good systematic studies of health impacts. it's been done with workers, radiation workers, nuclear energy workers in other countries but never to my knowledge in the united states. and i think there's actually going to be an effort to do a study like that. that's more likely to give us information because we have very accurate records of people's exposures which is really the most important thing. as richard said, when you're dealing with these kind of exposure levels, there are so many factors that can affect somebody's incidence of cancer or in some cases we don't know what causes those things. if we don't have very good accurate records of the doses, it's unlikely that you'll be able to really have any kind of reasonable statistics come out of it. but the u.s. data is actually very comprehensive and very
large samples of individuals. >> we have one last time for a short question and answer. we need a short answer. >> my name is tamear. about a month ago the japanese ambassador here in washington presented the fukushima events and showed -- discussed how they're recovering from it. one of the questions i tried to ask him was, how did that -- the scenario in fukushima compared to when the united states dropped two nuclear bombs smacked in the middle of hiroshima and nagasaki? obviously there was a far bigger disaster. i understand that it is good to discuss and the ways to -- but what happens? we still got wars going on and the way we see the military focusing at facilities there could be nuclear plants aimed at and destroyed. or we could have a tsunami
which is far more in terms of it could just wreck the whole nuclear core and throw it apart. do we have a solution really or are we being too nitpicky on this? >> these structures are robust structures and while there was damage to -- certainly to a lot of the auxiliary equipment and the diesel generators were lost by the tsunami, the basic containment structures did survive the tsunami and the earthquake. again, to the limited knowledge we have. there may have been some failures that will be identified later but they stood, so to speak. the pictures, i'm sure you've seen some of these pictures of this massive wave coming and hitting this structure. so it's a very difficult -- a very challenging force on those buildings. for the most part, the basic structures were able to withstand that. so they are robust in design.
you can't design every fall silt to deal with every kind of weapon or structure that's out there. you know, ultimately we're a civilian agency so we make sure we do what we can to ensure the right kinds of steps are taken to protect people and look at those things that we think are most affected to do that. >> well, thanks very much. let's give a warm thank you to jim asselstine and greg jaczko. [applause] >> and thank our moderator, too. he did a great job. [applause] >> and before you guys take off, if you enjoyed this one, please join us for the next round that we're going to have, infectious disease, changes to eradication. just to announce, we just got our speakers finalize. josh rosenthal, the acting deputy director at the n.i.h. going to be joining us.
josh michaud with the kaiser permanente. they'll be two of the speakers joining us. if you find that interesting, please join us. thank our sponsor. exxonmobil is one. american chemical society. georgetown university. and aaas for the use of their facility. so thank you very much for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the u.s. in under an hour, 2:00 p.m. eastern. they'll take up a number of bills later including the increased of skills workers. and department programs and
policies. and you can follow that on c-span2. c-span3 will be live at 5:30 eastern with the debate with on grover norquist, live at 5:30. >> let be very clear, i will neither be a lobbyist nor historian. i promise you both. there is no way i would be a lobbyist. look, i will miss this job. i have some regret when the new congress is -- signed up. but i will tell you this -- maybe you're going to laugh, but one of the advantages to me of not running for office is, i don't even have to pretend to try to be nice to people i don't like. so some of you may not think i've been good at it but i've been trying. and the notion of being a lobbyist and having to go and try to be nice to people i don't like would be ridiculous. no. i will not in any way be a lobbyist. i do not intend to practice
law, though i have a law degree. although i may show up probono for gay rights. my intention would be some combination of teaching and lecturing. >> after 16 terms in the house of representatives, massachusetts congressman barney frank will step down at the end of next year. watch his retirement announcement as well as more than 1,000 other appearances on the c-span networks. online at the c-span video library. archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> when i look at why a country does well or why it doesn't, i think it's fundamentally a values thing. it's not natural resources. it's do you have -- these are two really crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it. some places they don't. the u.s. we have exaggerated sense how much control we have, but it's good for us to have that. >> this sunday your questions for author and "new york times"
columnist david brooks. you'll take your emails, calls including his bobos. his books is -- david brooks "in depth" on book tv on c-span2. >> now, a look at efforts by the group freedom works to influence the federal budget debate. "washington journal" talked to the group's president this morning about their role in the 201 campaigns. this is just under 45 minutes.
guest: you have to strip away some of the emotion and look at the economics of immigration and first problem is i.n.s. and we have to do something about the government's failure to rationally protect the borders and do something about that. i think to the extend we have economics, we'd like to see it so people come in legally and people come in who want to work. those are the principles. i thought gingrich was defending those principles. how you do that is is a very sticky question. host: do you agree how he would do that, providing some sort what his opponents say is amnesty for those who are already here? guest: you have to incentivize people to obey the law and i think that's what all of us are struggling with. if you have the question of border security, which is a different question, then you have the problem of the 12 million people who are already here illegally.
how would you get them to comply with the law? frankly that's outside of freedom works. it gets into social policy. you have to look at the incentives and makes sure it's in people's best interest to follow the law otherwise it won't work. host: freedomworks under the economics of gingrich's comments supports what he said? guest: gingrich supports a guest worker program. how do you make sure the guest workers are coming to this country legally and come in -- and are ataffed to a job, not just breaking across the border? host: national journal had this question -- can newt gingrich pass tea party muster? essary the ultimate washington needer, a career politician who spent two decades in that reviled institution known as the u.s. congress especially when compared to stick it to
the tea party heroes like rand paul. gingrich doesn't seem to fit the part. guest: he was in congress for 20 years. he's written so much and said so much. he's the anti-obama. everybody knows all of gingrich's stances on issues, even when he's been inconsistent. i think tea partiers have heartburn where he's been on in the past, global warming, support for health care mandate. he ended up supporting tarp. if you look at where he is today, you have to say some of the stances he's taking today and the clear economic positions are attractive. it's a bit of a conundrum for tea partiers. host: and freedomworks? guest: the 10 issues that were the tea party contract from america, and you have two gingriches. you have the gingrich of before and the gingrich of today. all the republican candidates are now talking the tea party
talk. the question is you a then thentiesity. i think that's what the primaries are for. we are vetting these guys and we have not settled on anyone clearly. there's a desperate look for someone other than mitt romney but who that person is i don't think we've settled yet. host: so other than mitt romney for freedomworks, why? guest: anyone other than romney. i think he has a fundamental problem particularly on health care. if you look at the recent results in moye, if you look at the polls in america, the american people don't like the federal government forcing you to buy a product just because you breathe. and romney refuses to disavow romney-care which is by any objective standard the basis of obamacare. guest: host: so will freedomworks endorse a candidate? guest: we have not endorsed a candidate for president and if we found the right one we will. we are not in a hurry to do that.
we are constantly polling our members of where they are on these issues and what they want us to do and they consistently say, please stay out of the primaries. let us work through this. i think that's where we are. host: so you wouldn't then endorse him? guest: probably not. host: what will you do then during this 2012 primary season leading up to the general election and what are your plans for the general election? guest: i think the big opportunity for tea partiers is in the u.s. senate and the map and the states where there are senate seats to be picked up are very advantageousous to where tea party has infrastructure and organization and i think that's where we're going to focus first. if you look at those states, states like florida and ohio, those happen to be the states that president obama needs to win to be a two-term president. so in a lot of ways tea parties are organizing in places where we can both work senate races and the presidential cycle. host: have you endorsed any senate candidate so far? guest: yeah, absolutely. we're playing in some republican primaries, some
important ones. we're trying to unseed orrin hatch in utah. we've come out against do you go lugar in indiana. more importantly, we're looking in primaries like texas where ted cruz, we think he's the next marco rubio of the senate. a number of other seats. i think what you're seeing from the tea party, we are going to be more happy with on average the candidates that come into the generals. host: you created a superpack this time. guest: yeah. host: why did you create it in 2012 guest: we had an affiliated p.a.c. we had a hard time communicating not just with our members but the broader tea party community because there's a firewall that the s.e.c. has. the model our of super p.a.c. is to solicit small donors from
a broad swath of the public. i think will raise a lot of $25 checks. not unlike president obama did when he was running against hillary clinton in the primary. host: so far the total independent expenditures about $138,000. compared to what you spernt just with your normal p.a.c. in 2010, you spent $688,000. excuse me. you spent $563,000 in. that was a regular p.a.c. so far you spent about $138,000. how much do you think you'll spend in the end? guest: upwards of $10 million. it really depends on our ability to spend checks. our p.a.c. is different. we don't run tv ads. it's designed to be a support center for any activist who want to get out the vote. if you don't want to hire a lawyer and don't want to set up your own p.a.c. and you need door signs, hangars, that's
what we're doing. the thing that the tea party has that nobody has is a standing party activist that will help with the vote. the question is how do we mobilize? host: so matt kibbe, we will take phone calls and tweets. our campaign 2012 bus is visiting columbia college. we will try to incorporate nine college students who will be participating in the program via skype. it's a private lab rale arts college for women founded in 1854. we want to give a special thanks to dr. edward sharky for preparing the students this morning and time warner cable for sponsoring today's bus students. we have one from renee who is a student there at columbia college. go ahead, renee. >> good morning. my name is renee. i am a sophomore at columbia
college and i am studying political science and spanish. my question is -- the tea party coming -- the tea party debt commission is doing the same thing to cut spending. if we repeal obamacare, how long will it take and what will we do to benefit u.s. citizens short term and long term? guest: i think repealing obamacare would be as quick as getting it through the congress and that's obviously not going to happen until we get a new president and a new senate. but i think the advantage of doing it now is that it has not been implemented. so unwinding all of the bureaucratic structures that we think will further undermine the cost and quality of health care. if we do it now it could happen quite quickly. host: dana, democrat in birmingham, alabama. chris: i think that you guys show quite incredible ability of moving from one issue to the
next such as fighting the payroll tax cut that the president is reaching for today and the issues around health care. just like the previous caller said. if you repeal obamacare, then how long and how much money is it going to take for you to put something in place that will actually allow for coverage of the millions of americans even more by that time that don't have insurance? guest: by the way, i for one, my organization doesn't oppose a reduction in the payroll tax. i think the bigger question on social security and medicare is, what is the structure reform that would allow young people to actually have a retirement, to have a health care system, because the numbers simply don't add up and a temporary tax cut of the payroll tax undermines that. but the bigger question and somewhat related is health care. i think the question is to get third parties out of the way between patients and doctors. and right now in the private
sector, because of a lot of government regulations, because of mandates that go back to the 1930's, there is always a middle man between us and our health care. the problem with obamacare is it goes one step further and says, not only is there a middle man, but it's going to be the government, it's going to be someone that will dictate whether or not you get the services you need. i think the key is to empower individuals that they have their own catastrophic health care plans that they have their own savings where they can decide what services, what plans work best for them. everybody's health care needs are different and one-size-fits-all, whether it comes from an h.m.o. or obamacare is not the way we need to be in the future. host: the senate is expected to vote friday on extending another payroll tax holiday, even making it -- giving americans more money in their paychecks, reducing it to 3.1%. freedomworks is behind that idea? guest: this is all complicated because there was a package of
tax cuts, and right now you have all of the bush tax rates about to expire. president obama supports this temporary payroll tax cut. what i'd like to see is fundamental reform of payroll taxes because it is a huge transfer of wealth from young working people to older, wealthier americans. and that's not sustainable in the future. anyone that runs the numbers notion it's true. but doing that temporarily, doing the bush tax cuts temporarily, that's bad tax policy because you don't change incentives for people to work. if you're cutting the tax on work or people to invest if you're cutting the thing to tax. let's go for fundamental tax reform. let's flatten rates across the board. let's get rid of all the loopholes, exceptions. rhetorically, at least, the president has supported some of that. right now with politics, everybody's playing a game. host: if the payroll tax cut is extended, does freedomworks use
some of that super p.a.c. money to go after democrats who voted for it, even republicans who might vote to extend it? guest: no. i don't think we would ever oppose a tax cut even if it's temporary. i am not sure it's good tax policy. host: even if it's not paid for? guest: well, they haven't paid for anything in years and that's something that all americans should be outraged about and we could talk about the supercommittee. i wish they would do something on the spending side because every tax policy that's proposed today is usually offset with another tax increase. and that undermines any potential you have with them. host: and in the senate you would extend this payroll tax cut, lower it to 3.1% and would be paid for by those who are taxed over $1 million, you oppose that? guest: i think it's a bad idea. host: another aboard the c-span campaign 2012 bus.
go ahead. >> my question is regarding the occupied movement versus the tea party movement. the media has been praising generally the occupied movement while not so much for the tea party. how do you think this will affect the republican nominee for the 2012 election. ? guest: i think it's frustrating between tea partiers who to my knowledge never been arrested, they've never broken ar window. they have not trashed public property or private property. and occupiers, even though there is some common ground in terms of crony capitalism and a lot of sympathy brankly from tea partiers on are the state of the economy and the inability of young people to get jobs, the way they conduct themselves undermines their own position. i think americans, save for democratic politicses, are distancing themselves from that in an odd way, this is a blessing for tea partiers because all of the things that
were falsely thrown at us, the accusations, things are seeing what's going on and understand this is the inevident ifble result when people don't respect each other. they don't respect individual freedom and property rights. host: madisonville, kentucky, you are next. caller: good morning, ma'am, good morning, sir. newt gingrich and mitch mcconnell, what are they going to -- the next president, how is he going to try to get the jobs back in america? why isn't everybody worried about social security, this and this and this and that, why won't they be worried about the jobs in this country? host: freedomworks plan for jobs? guest: i think the relationship between $15 trillion in debt and all of the money we're spending that we don't have is at least one factor undermining the inability of our economy to
recover because there's only so many ways you can spend that money you don't have. you can either raise taxes, you can borrow. and what's happening now more than anything is the federal reserve is printing money, expanding credit. that essentially is stealing from every dollar you have in your pocket. half of the problem has to be right sizing the size of government. that's the burden on the private sector's ability to grow. the other is getting rid of the disincentives to create jobs. that gets to tax reform. that gets to reining in out-of-control regulatory agencies like the e.p.a. you have to right size government and you have to grow the government. that, by the way, is how you balance the budget. host: there is more spending battles to come, whether or not to extend the payroll tax holiday. in freedomworks' opinion, which votes coming up are you monitoring which is important for you and your members that you say this is a big vote and we expect our tea party
candidates that we supported in 2010 to vote with us? guest: i'd like to see the supercommittee to keep their latest commitments and what you're covering now. shoip so questation? guest: oh, yeah. they need to go with a sequester because frankly it's not enough to kick the can down the road. the other thing that people need to watch -- host: so you support president obama's decision to veto anything that would try to alter defense cuts or anything like that? guest: i think they need to accept the cuts that they already agreed to. now, was it a good idea for republicans to agree to this process? no. we opposed the process. we oppose the idea of taking anything off the table. i don't think there need to be any sacred cows. defense should be on the table. so should everything else. now that they agreed to that process, it strikes me that republicans need to own it. the other thing that i think is more important to watch is the budget debate in 2012.
republicans have been the only adults in the room because paul ryan introduced a road map and democrats have shot at his but have not offered their own. there is no way to get the budget priorities unless democrats participate. host: ellie cochran is at our 2012 bus. columbia college, a liberal arts college for women. >> i hail from denver, colorado, and the 1kwru7 wards of $700,000 has been spent compensated the local state and police force within denver, colorado. what are your news on this new burden to taxpayers? guest: this is very frustrating to tea partiers because we got
the permits, we paid the fees, we took out insurance riders. even when they tried to stop us from protesting at the local level, freedomworks raised the money to do the march on washington. and now the occupiers are held to a different standard. they don't get the permits. they don't pay the fees. because of some of the destructive behavior, it's putting a huge burden on local government. it's a double standard. i think that those in the occupy movement should be asked to pay the cost that they're imposing on the rest of us. host: and the democrat caller in greensboro, north carolina. caller: a historian was on tv the other day stating some of the things that have been said about the affordable health care act and it's not obamacare. it was the affordable health care act. what's said about medicare. the republicans have never cared about the average worker but they have convinced average families that they do.
when the average american family wakes up they will be shocked to learn that there's an even bigger income gap between the wealthy and it won't be the middle class. this is what the republicans have fooled so many people to vote for them and go along with what they are saying. host: all right. matt kibbe. guest: of course lieu at government involvement in health care it's -- if you look at government involvement in health care, it's different than that. it has a disproportionate affect on people that can least afford coverage. i would point out one glaring contradigs in obamacare. i call it that. i understand it's the affordable health care act. is the huge transfer of wealth from younger, more healthy, less wealthy people to older, less healthy, more wealthy people. and that to me is fundamentally un-american because young people shouldn't be forced to
buy the same coverage as senior citizens have because it just doesn't make any sense. if you get away from a government one-size-fits-all program and allow individuals each to save for their own health care needs i think you get to better health care results, lower prices and a fundamentally fairer system for everybody. host: brittany at columbia college. go ahead, brittany. >> hi. i'm a senior here at columbia college and my question is, as occupied movement protestors strive to bring about economic and social equality, some people may believe that the payroll tax cuts are an answer to their prayers. what other things do you think needs to take place in order to bring about economic equality? guest: well, let's talk about the payroll tax cut because i think it's important to understand what that system is. democrats for years have argued that reforming social security
by allowing young people to take a portion of their payroll faxes and put it in a personal account fundamentally undermines the system and yet now here we are with democrats saying that we can afford to take revenue streams out of social security and medicare and temporarily transfer them back to workers, i think a better model and more fundamentally economically sound model would be to allow younger workers to save their payroll taxes for retirement, for health care, for the things that they need, that's a way that minimum wage workers, frankly, could actually accumulate wealth for themselves and their families. as that money goes into payroll taxes, as it goes into the black hole of the social security trust fund, the working poor do not raise capital. they never get from where they are to the american dream which is to own a house, to own -- to
own their own futures. host: let's go next to kevin, a republican in california. you're on the air with matt kibbe of freedomworks. caller: i want to know how you feel about the wars abroad and what we should do in the future. guest: well, i would say as head of freedomworks and as a tea partier, i don't think there's not a tea party position that freedomworks doesn't fake on foreign policy. but i would say this, there is a lot of money being spent in a lot of places across the world and at some point that's not stainable. we can't continue to spend so much money we don't have. that has foreign policy consequences, but if we don't do something about defense spending in addition to domestic spending, that is the ultimate undermining of american security because that's going to bring down our economy and that's going to bring down our ability to defend ourselves over the long run. host: go ahead at columbia
college. >> hi. i'm a senior at columbia college. south carolina governor hayley removed protestors in statehouse grounds. how does the tea party interpret the occupied movement's right to assemble with unlimited time to stay on government grounds? guest: well, i think what we did and what we do when tea partiers protest is we follow the rules. we get the permits and we do what we need to do to comply with the law. now, sometimes that's -- from my point of view, that's not always fair. but that's how we do things. i think it's not appropriate ever to -- there's a big difference between peacefully assembling and your first amendment rights and simply occupying public or private space. that's not how the rules are. i think nicky haley was right to do that.
host: a lot of people on twitter are questioning whether or not you have a leading horse in the presidential primary, that out of the eight there must be somebody that freedomworks thinks on top. guest: i will mention somebody that no one mentions, the one candidate that's drawn significant support in the republican primary is ron paul and nobody really faux about him. but he's been consistently at 10%. even higher at times. the problem we have right now is you've had all these spikes of -- you know, you had the anti-romney guy of the week, of the month. we haven't had a primary yet. there's two criteria for a successful candidate. one is where do you stand on the issues and we are aware of where the candidates stand on the issues. and the other one is, do you know how to organize a national campaign so you can win? that's the purpose of the primaries. i think everybody's looking for that candidate, but, no, there is no leader.
you could go down the list and talk about the various people that we like philosophically but no one has emerged as that clear leader. host: so newt gingrich has not passed that second test? guest: no. host: resources, ability, ground game to win a primary? guest: this is the second life of his campaign. it collapsed once already. the question -- one of the things he's quite good at is online organization. he understands new media. and in this decentralized world of politics, it's not about endorsements, it's about your ability to connect in a decentralized way. he might be able to do that but why would i prejudge that? let's see who we can do it. host: jim hinz as this tweet --
guest: the two frontrunners, mitt romney is clearly the candidate of choice for those that i would call the republican establishment. and the republican party has a long history of choosing the next guy in line. that's how we got bob dole. that's how we got john mccain. and contrary to conventional wisdom it turns out to be a very bad strategy to win presidency. newt gingrich, of course, you could hardly argue he's not part of the establishment. but the problem for tea partiers is our freshman we got elected in 2010, there's a lot of tea party rock stars in there but they're too young. they're a little bit green to run for president and they actually have the humility, unlike president obama, to know that they're not ready to be president. everybody talks about marco rubio. frankly, i'd rather see him be vice president than president.
i think there's too much emphasis on the v.p. and go back to some of these folks that i mentioned. bob dole chose jack kemp to energize his campaign. john mccain chose sarah palin and that didn't compensate for the weaknesses of the candidates himself. caller: i'd like to hear a brief response. you just had a guest on earlier that was an advocate for social security. he's trying to say that -- i see $2.6 trillion in debt. i see negative cash flow. i have see one out of every 19 americans on s.s.i. we see law
firms like bender&bender who make a living out of getting these people onto these programs. i don't believe the system is solvent. i'd like to hear mr. kibbe's response on that. guest: if you look at both programs combined there is over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the life cycle of those programs. if that was a private pension fund people would be in jail. and to me it's particularly scandalous that the federal government doesn't even put that $100 trillion on the books. the only way to get out of that is do what private companies have done. it's not controversial. it's what federal employees have. that's move from a defined benefit where we promise to give you x amount to a defined contribution where you have more control over the money you earn, how it's managed as you move towards retirement and how
you spend it in retirement. there's not a radical idea but you got to get young people off of those unfunded liabilities. and the best way to do that is to let them save for their own retirement futures. the democrats will demagogue that. they say that there's nothing wrong with the current system. but everybody knows that the current system is bankrupt and the question is -- how do we protect current seniors while allowing young people to do better for themselves? host: let's go back to our campaign 2012 bus in south carolina and speak to monica. go ahead. >> good morning. my question is -- with the way the occupy movement is presented by the media, how do you think it will influence voters in the 2012 election? guest: i've been surprised at how vice president joe biden, how president obama and how nancy pelosi have allem braced occupy wall street because for
whatever they're legitimate cause is, and i've acknowledge i agree with them on crony capitalism and i believe there's something broken about financial distribution, but what they have embraced is by offensive bad behavior. i talked about the violence. there's actually been murders and rapes in these occupy enclafes. there's blatant -- host: has that been proven? guest: yeah, it's been proven. the question is who's responsible? there's clearly a problem of violence in occupy camps. it's blatant anti-semitism. i think tea partiers would like occupy to be held to the same
standards. we didn't tolerate that behavior. we kicked people out. host: they've spent how much on these videos that are kitcal of occupy wall street? -- critical of occupy wall street? guest: $20,000. host: why spend there amount money focusing on that movement rather than focusing on government which is what tea party was established to do? guest: i think they're replated. the bad behavior in occupy rallies is reflective of a set of values, and tea partiers can be defined simply by what unites us all. there's a lot of things that is different about tea partiers but we believe you shouldn't hurt other people and you shouldn't take their stuff. and that comes from our belief in individual freedom. that comes from our belief in property rights. i think if you look at how occupy functions and how the general assembly functions, it is a set of dess per--
desparate demands. they are a fundamentally different place we could take our government. i think that's important because that's the debate we are going to have in this election. is government the answer or is more reliance, more support for individuals and their ability to work, their ability to save for themselves, their ability to make choices about their own health care, that's the debate we are going to have. host: when you say tea partiers believe you shouldn't hurt anybody, that sounds like social policy. guest: it's respect for individuals. i think it's the first rule of civil conduct. and from that comes a respect for property rights. if you take somebody else's stuff, you're hurting that person, and that to me is a basic set of sprals. i don't think it's not social policy as much as the basis
under which our government functions. host: earlier we asked our viewers if a candidate's personal life matters when they go to vote after the news broke yesterday that a woman came out in georgia saying she had a 13-year affair with g.o.p. candidate herman cain. he's denied that. does it matter to freedomworks? guest: it's beyond our scope of concern. it certainly matters to freedomworks members. i would make the general observation that republicans generally care more about the personal conduct of their candidates than democrats have seem to do. to me the ultimate question is -- how are they going to govern, and if their personal behavior reflects on that it matters. host: mark's a republican in pennsylvania. you're on the air. caller: yes. for 40 years state lotteries were supposed to curb the cost for uninsured, medicaid,
medicare from a to z, and i think they've been double dipping because taxes went up. we say we're broke and stuff. could you address that? why hasn't no one ever said about the lottery money from states? that's how they got the lotteries. they were supposed to help with that kind of stuff. host: ok. matt kibbe. guest: here is the problem of giving states more revenue or governments more revenue. they never spend it on what they say they're supposed to spend it on. i have think the creation of a state-based lottery has generated a lot of lottery that was earmarked for certain things but it goes in the general fund and the more you feed government, the more government ratchets up and it doesn't solve the problem. the reason the founders wanted to limit the size of the federal government is that they
understood well that the politics of special from -- interest bed feathering always drives up the cost of government. and if you limit the proper functions of government, you can more rationally allocate limited resources. host: up next from columbia college, lindsey johnson. >> hello. i'm lindsey johnson, a senior at columbia college. my question relates to the election of the candidates. while i'm viewing the debates now in current process, i see a lot of candidates discussing very complicated policy questions like health care and foreign policy. in a few sentences or less, many times niece candidates send in rhetoric. how best do i make a decision based in light of these facts because it's hard to discern what people are saying. guest: i agree with you and i found the preponderance have
not shed light. there are two exceptions that comes to mind. one is a session that jim demint that allowed the candidates one at a time, kept independent of each other, to answer questions in a longer format. and frank lunts did something similar to that in iowa. you can watch those online where the candidates are allowed to answer questions and talk about what they believe and how their beliefs affect their governing philosophy. host: roanoke, virginia, marian, democratic caller. caller: good morning. hi, matt. guest: hi. caller: i just have a few questions for you. i read an article that said that people that have 401-k plans, after 30 years of having their 401-k's, since pensions have gone by the wayside, that they send end up paying 28% to bank fees and handling fees. so basically they are left
with, what, 72% or whatever. total. so if you privatize or voucherize social security and it goes to the banks, how much money would that take out of somebody who has very little money coming in any way that these kind of handling fees and everything would take over? so that's a very serious question to me for privatization. it sounds like it's a terrible idea. the other question i don't have for you. i am very interested in where people get their money from and who bracks you. tell me the percentage of millionaires and corporations, what percentage of all your money that you got this year came from millionaires and corporations. guest: about 4% of our total budget came from corporations. this year so far. and we raise our money from a very broad community of donors. i think we have about 42,000 individual donors.
so i can probably say i'm not dependent on any individual donor for my funding. now, i'm not aware of the particular regulations involving 401-k's. i do know when you draw those funds, they're pretax dollars. when you draw them out you're taxed on them. i frankly have a problem with that. the question about what you call privatization versus the current system is whether or not you have more confidence in the government's ability to keep its commitments or your own ability to diversify a portfolio and to protect your own assets not with one particular bank, not with one particular investment but you spread that across a lot of different places. you don't keep all your eggs in one basket. i'd rather trust myself than a future generation of politicses that are not bound by one politicians that are not bound
by one thing. host: go ahead. >> yeah. how does the occupy movement compare to the tea party in terms of longevity? guest: in a fundamentally different sense than occupiers are. my own view is that guys like van jones, a community organizers, and even george soros, the famous billionaire that funds leftist causes, i think there's a lot of deep pocketed topdown leadership that comes from occupying. and you look at the way they function the general assembly in the park met at the deutsche bank lobby. the tea party movement is leaderless because we have these values that i was talking about. we respect each other. we don't hurt each other. we don't take each other's stuff. when we come together to do something it's on a volunteer
basis. it's on the trader principle. it's value for vafment and you can't have a leaderless -- it's value for value. and you can't have a leaderless movement unless you have communities. that's why you're seeing occupy literally fall apart. it's not functioning the way the activists hoped it would. host: john, an independent from baltimore. you are on the air for matt kibbe from freedomworks. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have two questions, if you'll bear with me. first one has to do with social security. i served 20 years in the military from 1971 to the end of the first gulf war. i was diagnosed with pths -- ptsd. didn't file for social security disability until 2005 because my symptoms got worse. took me four years before i could get it approved.
which i thought was you know, really unjust. host: i hate to hurry you but we're rub running out of time. can you get to your question? caller: am i going to be affected negatively when it comes to my benefits for disability, you know, as far as the word entitlement and the word benefit, there's a difference. host: ok, john, we'll leave it there. guest: the reforms we're talking about doesn't talk about what you're talking about. we are talking about something that's totally different. host: reenawallace. >> yeah.
do you agree -- [inaudible] are they more of a help or hained rance? guest: both the republican party and democratic party are becoming less relevant in the conversation a and i think that's a healthy thing. there is a demock are atyization that's -- democratization that's empowering people through the internet. we don't need the republican party to tell us what we think any more. that's true for democrats as well and that's a healthy thing. host: let me thank the mine students from columbia college, there are around 1,500 students. thank you to dr. sharky who helped them with their questions. and time warner cable. a big thanks to everybody. thanks, matt kibbe.
>> u.s. house gaveling in. a number of bills later today. one would increase the highly skilled foreign workers allowed in the u.s. the senate coming back into session in about 20 minutes at 2:15 eastern. they're debating defense department policies. today on detainee policy. c-span3 will be live at 5:30 as grover norquist talks about the failure of the deficit reduction committee and whether new taxes are needed now. that will be on c-span3 at 5:30. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. [applause] >> george mcgovern's pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon
but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's "the contenders," from the mcgovern senate for leadership in mitchell, south dakota, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the null designed c-span.org website has 11 yesterdayio choices making it easier for you to look live. and a three network layout so you can look at the scheduled programs on the c-span network. there is a section to access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal," "book tv," "american history tv" and "the contenders." and a channel finder on how to watch c-span at the all new c-span.org.
u.s. house is about to gavel in. members may conduct short speeches before gaveling out. we expect them to do that, as a matter of fact, and then vote later today at 6:30 eastern. scheduled today, bills to allow more foreign workers, skilled foreign workers in the u.s. bankruptcy protection for national guard and reservists. and also a bill that would make a number of changes to federal worker disability compensation. the house is gaveling in live here on c-span. 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 rooms, washington, d.c. november 29, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris 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 our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.
gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all good gifts and this past week with thankful hearts we gathered with family and loved ones throughout this great land to celebrate our blessings together. bless the members of the people's house who have been entrusted with the privilege to serve our nation and all americans in their need. grant them to work together in respect and affection and to be faithful in the responsibilities they have been given. as the end of the first session approaches, and much is left to be done, bestow upon them the gifts of wisdom and discernment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy, and walk humbly with you. may all that is done this day
be for your greater honor and glory. 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. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. , i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are most poned. -- are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: thank you, mr. speaker.
i ask that our colleagues and those in the audience please rise and join us as we celebrate our nation. 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 texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, those who say that the border is secure and the violence is contained in mexico are living in a blissful state of ignorance. case in point, last week, according to "the houston chronicle," three s.u.v.'s carrying mexican zeta cartel soldiers tried to hijack a tractor truck rig loaded with drugs on a road in north houston. they unleashed blazing gunfire, a shootout occurred with police
who were tracking the truck from mexico. the truck driver was killed, a peace officer was wounded. three mexican nationals and another of unknown citizenship were charged with capital murder. the local head of the d.e.a., javier pena, said we're not going to tolerate these thugs using their weapons like the wild, wild west. sadly, this brazeon case of violence is familiar, seen on the streets of mexico. and now it's become a reality in the united states. until washington realizes what happens in mexico doesn't stay in mexico, more cartel shootouts on american streets are coming our way. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: good afternoon, mr. speaker. i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: well, congress is in a dead lock over tax and spending cuts. we learn the fed secretly gave wall street banks over $7.7
trillion. where did the fed get that $7.7 trillion? they created most of it from nothing. well, our government slid into massive debt, the fed picked winners and losers and secretly held big banks record profits. remember the great debate we had here, over $700 billion in tarp funds? there was no debate over the $7.7 trillion the fed gave the banks. did congress have a clue? there's another game going on way over our heads and our constituents are struggling. well, the banks with the help of the fed captured controlled control of our government. -- captured control of our government. could the threat of our national sovereignty be any clearer? reneed to reclaim the constitutional primacy. let's take our freedom back from the fed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise?
mr. wilson: 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, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last monday the joint select committee on deficit reduction announced that the bipartisan group had failed to reach an agreement. in an op-ed to the "wall street journal," congressman jeb hensarling, co-chair of the supercommittee, stated that the group, quote, missed an historic opportunity to lift the burden of debt and helps for economic growth and job creation. end of quote. last week i attended a town hall meeting in forest acres, south carolina, hosted by mayor frank brunson where we discussed ways to promote small businesses and encourage job growth within the private sector. the message from the constituents was very clear. congress must reduce washington's out-of-control spending before it's too late. as congress returns from the thanksgiving day recess, i encourage my colleagues in the senate to begin focusing on job
creation by considering any of the 20 job bills the house has passed with bipartisan support this year. in conclusion, god bless our troops sand we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. it was about a week ago that the joint select committee announced that they were unable to reach an agreement in finding $1.2 trillion in cuts before their deadline. now, could they have done this without really breaking a sweat? the answer is yes, they could. the entire target for which they were reaching, $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion could have been cut with a single act, repealing the affordable care act. $1.5 trillion in new spending that this country cannot afford is contained within the confines of the affordable care
act. look, washington needs to quit pointing fingers and get back to work if we expect to put america back to prosperity. washington should cut. families do not the luxury of missing their deadlines and neither should washington. americans must reduce their deficit and we need to put people back to work. the house has passed more than 25 bills that would affect employment. 25 of these house-passed bills are stalled in the senate. you can find out more about them by going to jobs.gop.gov. let's focus on ways to reduce the deficit. that means creating more taxpayers, not more taxes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the illinois bowling brook high school football team on winning
the class 8-a championship on november 25. the coach led the team to a record breaking season of 13 wins and one loss. this accomplishment by the raiders marks the first state football championship for bowling brook high school. despite the absence of their star linebacker, the raiders overcame five turnovers and won the championship game by a score of 21-17 against the top-rated loyola academy. each player demonstrated a tremendous level of dedication and hard work, including seniors antonio morrison and robby bain. other stars was junior aaron bailey who scored the game-winning touchdown and senior darryon rhodes who sealed the game with an interception. mr. speaker, our community is very proud of niece accomplished young athletes. once again, i'd like to congratulate the bowling brook high school raiders on their win and wish them continued success in all of their future endeavors. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the so-called supercommittee announced last week that it was unable to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the excourse of 10 years. that is a sad commentary on washington, d.c.'s addiction to spending. $1.2 trillion is one year less of overspending at the going rate. just continue the mess in europe. the bailout fund is trying to keep debtor nations like greece, portugal afloat while italy teeters on the brink of insolvency. europe's sovereign debt crisis is not an abstract economic lesson. it's debt finance, government profligacy. some these nations battered by the consequence of high debt levels have debt to g.d.p.
ratios that are close to our own. if congress doesn't get serious about reducing spending and ending the federal debt addiction, we're going to find ourselves in the same boat as our friends in the euro zone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this thanksgiving many of us had the opportunity to spend time with our families and loved ones so i think it's fitting that november is national adoption month. i also think it's appropriate to take time during this holiday season to recognize the tens of thousands of families nationwide who are foster families. unfortunately in my home state of illinois a potential tragic situation unfolded. faith-based adoption reags across the state are being shut down because of their belief in traditional marriage. the illinois department of child and family services has declined to renew contracts with several organizations.
they have decimated these agencies, some of whose work was 70% foster care. mr. hultgren: it's an unfortunate situation and i am watching it. the right to adoption is one thing we really must defend. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, let's be perfectly clear, our tax policy affects job growth. when the federal government raises taxes, raises rates, or creates new taxes, businesses make decisions regarding their work force. when the government takes more, businesses have to make due with less. all told, last year's health care reform law will raise taxes by $800 billion over the next 10 years. one of the new taxes is a 2.3%
tax on medical devices. michigan-based manufacture stryker announced that they will redors their work force by 5% so they will be prepared to pay this new tax beginning in 2013. stryker is just one of the first to announce reductions and layoffs. medical device companies will be faced with difficult decisions about where they will cut in order to pay this massive new tax bill. many will have no choice but to reduce the work force. we don't need a health reform law that destroys a plus. we need one that encourages the creation of good jobs with good benefits. we must repeal the so-called affordable care act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. today.
of not running for office is, i don't even have to pretend to try to be nice to people i don't like. some of you may not think i have been good at it, but i have been trying. and the notion of being a lobbyist and having to go and try to be nice to people i don't like would be ridiculous. no, i will not in any way be a lobbyist. i do not intend to practice law although i have a law degree although i might show up probono for a gay rights case. my intention would be to do some combination of teaching and lecturing. >> after 16 terms in the house of representatives, massachusetts congressman barney frank will step down at the end of next year. watch his retirement announcement, as well as more than 1,000 other appearances, on the c-span networks, online, at the c-span video library, archived and searchable. it's washington, your way. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american
soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's pledge at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon, but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's, "the contenders" from the mcgovern center for leadership in mitchell, south dakota. live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> pennsylvania republican senator pat toomey coming up at 2:30. he was a deficit reduction committee member. until then a conversation on the future of social security and medicare from this morning's "washington journal."
host: host: support bills for plan to rein in medicare costs. although the so-called supercommittee, the deficit reduction committee, was not able to reach a deal, there are members from both parties that believe that there should be some compromise on medicare. and that the panel -- medicare should offer a fixed amount of money to each beneficiary to buy coverage from competing private plans whose costs and benefits will be tightly regulated by the government. some democrats say that if carefully designed with enough protections for beneficiaries, it might work. the idea is known as you probably know as premium support because medicare would charge by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government. what do you think of this idea? guest: i think people of their
district and new york told us what americans think about that, it's a bad idea. there was a special election, if you remember, in upstate new york, the buffalo area, and the democratic candidate, kathy hochul, won. and she won to, i think, a large extent because she opposed this idea. this is the ryan plan. premium support. it's the ryan plan that was pretty much panned a few months ago. and i don't understand why it's being resurrected. it's a bad idea. giving seniors on medicare a fixed amount of money and telling them to go out and buy insurance is going to mean they are going to pay more each year, because the amount will not be adjusted to keep up with health care inflation. you know, greta, we have medicare because private insurance simply didn't work. didn't cover seniors. they don't want to cover seniors. it's not a money making
proposition. so we don't need to go back in time to a situation where seniors cannot afford and cannot buy health insurance. that's the wrong approach. host: if sequestration goes through now that this deficit reduction committee has not come up with a deal, as currently constructed can you support those cuts? guest: i don't like all those cuts. host: what are they? guest: for seniors, i don't know about all the cuts in defense. host: medicare. guest: for seniors, medicare would be cut by 2%. on the provider side, hospitals, nursing -- skilled nursing facilities, physicians, and those that are pretty dramatic cuts that could, if not beneficiaries, there will be no increases, i understand it, on beneficiaries in terms of co-pays and peopleums. out-of-pocket costs. but -- premiums. out-of-pocket costs. but there will be cuts on providers that.
could have dramatic impact, a dramatic impact on access. so we are very leery about those cuts. there are other pieces of see questions tration that are problematic. low-income home energy assistance, very important to seniors, especially in the winter. that could be -- would be cut dramatically, about $250 million a year. the meals on wheels, there are a lot of problems with that. but the failure of the supercommittee i don't consider a failure. they did not fail the american people. failure would have been cutting programs for middle class americans and for seniors while protecting the wealthy. and that did not happen. host: if they had come to some sort of deal, you would have considered that a failure because medicare, social security, reforms to those programs would have been on the
table. guest: absolutely. one of the most frustrating things for us at the national committee to preserve social security and medicare watching this debate was how many times officials in our government, including the president of the united states, including the director of the office of management and budget, said social security is not the problem. social security has not added a penny to our federal deficit and our debt. it's not the problem yet it was the focus of so much attention in the negotiations, and we tried to get the message across that this program didn't cause the problem. and should not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiating for deficit reduction plan. host: given they didn't reach a deal, is your group going to then be ok with this $123 billion in cuts to medicare? in other words, are you willing
to accept sequestration? guest: we may have no choice. the president has said he would veto any proposal to alter or amend or repeal requestions tration unless there is a comparable package, deficit reduction package, that is put forward that amounts to, again, $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. we are going to be watching it very carefully. there are going to be a lot of negotiations. this isn't the end. the failure, quote, failure, of the supercommittee is not the end of the discussion. we are going to have the whole budget process to work through. i wanted to just say one thing about our efforts. i am so proud of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. it's 3.5 million members and supporters. its dedicated staff, and the other groups that we partnered with in our campaign to get through the bubble that these
supercommittee tried to live in over the last three months. we penetrated that bubble. host: you were part of those ads that many americans saw where seniors said if you touch medicare and social security, we have a big vote. we have a say in 2012. guest: we had a campaign slogan that resonated, hands off, no cuts. and we appeared in the media, paid media, earned media, broadcast, all of the sunday talk shows for weeks, and we had a field organization that was involved in at least 120 events around the country, many targeted toward districts -- in districts and states that were represented members of the supercommittee. we delivered i think 65,000 petillingses -- petitions to the congress saying hands off, no cuts to social security and medicare and medicaid. we generated almost 80,000
phone calls to members of congress. i used to work on capitol hill and one of the first things a member -- members i worked for, i worked for three different members, would say when he walked in was, what are we hearing? so they heard, i think they heard our message. host: how much money did you spend on that? guest: we spent over $2 million. and that's a lot of money for us. host: let's talk about social security. are there any reforms that you would agree to on social security? guest: first of all, reforms of social security will probably happen. and we are not opposed to ever changing anything to social security. that wouldn't make any sense. it's a dynamic program. it has changed over time. it's not the same program it was in 1935. there have been a number of major changes. the last time social security was changed in a comprehensive way was in 1983, the social
security amendments. and that dealt with a lot of changes, including the benefits and the financing. but that was done for the sake of social security. not to solve some problem, as i mentioned, that social security didn't create. so there's always -- social security is sound. able to pay everybody every penny they are entitled to, and that's not max richtman saying it. that's the trustees until the year 2036. then there is a shortfall of a little over 20%. that needs to be dealt with. we did not need to fix that particular problem by thanksgiving. but we don't want to wait until december of 2036, but we didn't need to address it by thanksgiving. so we need to look at the long-range problems and we would like to be part of that process. host: let me remind our viewers of an october 29 piece in the
"washington post," the debt fallout, how social security went cash negative earlier than expected. in 2010 under the strain of a recession that caused tax revenue to plummet, the cost of benefits outstripped tax collections for the first time in the early 1980's. now social security is sucking money out of the treasury. this year will add a projected $46 billion to the nation's budget problems, according to projections, replacing cash lost to a one-year pay rol tax will require an additional $105 billion. if the pay rol tax break is expanded next year as we are brown-waite debating this week in the senate, social security will need an extra $267 billion to pay promised benefits. guest: i remember lawrie montgomery's article and i took great exception to that article and wrote to the "washington post." they didn't brint my analysis, but she's absolutely wrong about social security being cash negative. yes, the money that came in through the payroll tax,
because of the recession, and our high unemployment, did not cover all of the benefits that needed to be paid, but there's interest on the social security trust fund bonds. it's not cash negative. the program still, even in this awful economic time, the program added money, added money to its trust fund because it received interest on the bonds that are held in the social security trust fund. $2.6 trillion. they will grow another $1 trillion in the next 10 years or so. so i'm sorry that she presented the case the way she did. i think it was very misleading. host: some say, though, that how it works is that the treasury has to sell those bonds. and if investors are weary of the congress, the government of the united states, being able to deal with our deficit situation, that is if they don't tackle medicare,
medicaid, social security, that the united states will suffer another downgrade. and investors will run away. and they won't want to buy those bonds to help pay for social security. guest: i'm not here defending our debt or deficit. there is no question -- host: something needs to be done. guest: absolutely. something needs to be done with our debt and deficit. social security, again, is not the problem. host: how do you do it without tackling medicare and medicaid and social security? guest: first of all you do it in its for the sake of the program. you don't do it in a crisis atmosphere. you don't do it with a deadline of thanksgiving to change and reform these major social insurance programs. that's not the right way to do it in the first place. it was done in a thoughtful way back in the 1980's. the greenspan commission headed by the former chairman of the fed, alan greenspan, i'm told
senator moynihan, a lot of different people from various political persuasions got together in a thoughtful way, put together a plan that dealt with the financing and benefits and put the program on sound footing. by the way we are talking now about 2036. solvency date. back then it was four, five months. it was not 25 years. they were -- that was really a crisis. i don't want to get to that point, but it does not need -- we did not need to solve these enormous issues, complicated issues by thanksgiving. host: let's get to phone calls here. bob a republican in ashland, ohio, you are up first, go ahead. caller: yeah, i think that this tax break on social security is a big mistake. we are talking about we are going to have to do something to fix it. the way i look at it is, it has
been butchered over the years and that taking it out of there just to make another stimulus is ridiculous. host: you are talking about the payroll tax holiday. extending that. you oppose that? caller: totally. that money's for social security. using that to prop up something else is just another way of opening up the bank for them to dish out whatever they want. host: do you agree? guest: i think bob is dead right. this diversion of social security payroll tax is an enormous problem. he mentioned the difficulties of social security and this money would have to be paid back, these bonds would have to be back. why in the world are we now even contemplating taking another $100 billion to $200 billion out of this program that will have to be paid back? it's an enormous mistake.
the reason social security has -- had such strong enduring universal support, nearly universal, is because it's paid for. it's an earned program. i wish we would stop talking about social security as an entitle. -- entitlement. because when you think of it that way it's almost as if a retiree receives social security because that retiree exists. that retiree paid -- >> heritage foundation in washington, senator pat toomey, a member of the joint joint deficit reduction committee speaking at the heritage foundation. that's the president of the foundation doing introductions right here on c-span. >> the staff of the foundation it's our pleasure to welcome you here today to our auditorium. it's particular pleasure today for me to welcome back to the heritage foundation a dear friend, a collaborator in many important efforts over the
years, both in his former service in the u.s. house of representatives, in his myriad roles in the private sector, as leader of the club for growth, as a private business leader back in pennsylvania, and now of course as the distinguished junior senator from pennsylvania. where i must say, too, you have some very enthusiastic constituents in terms of by son, daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters in villanova. pat, we are delighted always to welcome you back to the heritage foundation. your role as a principaled conservative leader in the u.s. senate is well-known to everyone. your role on the supercommittee has been a critical one. we look forward to your comments today. thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much. thank you so much, it's great to be back. as you know i continue to be a great fan of heritage.
you guys really do continue to play an indispensable role in helping to build the intellectual infrastructure for the conservative movement and coming up with the kind of policies that we need for our country. i'm grateful for you for that work that you do. the topic of the day i guess is to reflect a little bit on the supercommittee experience. i look forward to your questions when we finish, but i want to start off with a little bit of context and i will share with you what i said to my staff when this all finished and it was finally over after several very intense months, i said to everybody on the staff, listen, if anything like this ever comes up again, i want you to know you can immediately sign me up. and then you'll be fired. that's not what i said, but it was a tough experience.
i think it's worth reflecting for a minute how we got here. this didn't happen overnight. what happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being was of course fundamentally a spending spree. that's what really has driven this. remember, it's been the sequence of stimulus bills and bailouts and government takeovers, a huge surge in discretionary spending, and i think of it sometimes as the political resurrection of john maynardkeynes. in his name and infolking his memory, this government has gone on an unprecedented spending spree in the misguided notion that somehow we can borrow and spend our way back to prosperity. by any measure the spending has gone through the roof. one of the measures i think is
particularly telling in 2007 total spendling by -- spending by the federal government as a percentage of our economy was 19.7%. by 2009 it was 24.7%. fully a 25% increase in the size of the federal government as a percentage of our economy. in a mere two years. i think that says it all. let me say one more thing and that is what we have, what we are facing is not fundamentally a tax problem. as recently as 2007 the very tax rates that we have today, this code, generated revenue that was about the historical average in recent decades, about 18.5% of g.d.p., and with revenue at 18.5% of g.d.p., in 2007 we had a deficit that was almost trivial in size. it was 1.2% of g.d.p. a size that seems quaint by contemporary standards, right?
eminently manageable number and this is not ancient history and with the current tax rates. another illustration of the fact that taxes are not the problem that got us here is consider this, if you could double all of the individual tax revenue that was collected last year, not that you could without cratering the economy, but imagine if you could, if you do that, you still would have run a $400 billion deficit last year. in fact c.b.o. ran through the exercise of calculating where tax rates would have to be if we were going to solve the entire long-term deficit and debt problem through taxes alone, and you know what they came up with? they said that the top individual and corporate tax rates would be 88%. and all the other rates would have to increase in proportion. clearly no economy could possibly sustain those kind of rates. it's actually aret metically
impossible to solve this problem on the tax side alone. now we find ourselves having gone through this spending spree, find ourselves with a weak economy still. it has not had the intended effect. unemployment still is persistently way, way, too high. we have now a huge debt. about 70% of g.d.p. now and growing rapidly. if you want to consider how unsustainable, how utterly unsustainable the situation is, i think here's the statistic that speaks volumes. if you look at just social security and the mandatory health care programs and interest on our debt, just those three things, those three things alone by 2021 inside the current budget window, are projected to consume 90% of all expected tax revenue. just those three things.
leaving absolutely nothing for all the other mandatory spending programs, all the welfare programs, nothing whatsoever for discretionary, defense spending, none of that is included in those three things, yet they would consume 90% of what we could reasonably expect to collect in revenue. so it's abundantly obvious to me and probably to all of you we are on a completely unsustainable path. so at the supercommittee, the republicans -- i have to say i'm very pleased at the extent to which we were relatively united, not completely unanimous in everything, certainly there were disagreements, but mostly it was an emphasis and priorities. what we did want to do is fix the problem. and what was the problem? president obama was helpful in defining the problem quite correctly, i will quote. he said the major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is medicare and medicaid and our
health care spending, nothing comes close. that's from president obama in january of 2010. he's absolutely right. and so what we set out to do was to redesign what i think are fundamentally flawed architectures of these big programs which are the reason that they are unsustainable, and redesign them in a way that would make them work, make them sustainable, allow us to get back on a sustainable fiscal path. the house republican budget gave us a way to go forward. we never expected that the democrats would warmly embrace that. we weren't shocked when they didn't, but we were opened to any number of other ways to try to change this -- the problem with the architecture of these big programs. failing a change in the architecture we suggested can we at least make some meaningful reforms in things like eligible and means testing? so that we could make meaningful curbs to the long-term growth trajectory of these programs?
that was what we set out to try to accomplish. the democrats had a different idea. they wanted $1 trillion tax increase. they wanted that at the beginning. they wanted that in the middle. they wanted that at the end. sometimes a little more than $1 trillion. but the gist of it was a massive tax increase with no changes whatsoever to the fundamental design of the programs that are driving the problem. i have maintained from the beginning a $1 trillion tax increase is a complete nonstarter, doesn't solve the problem, wrong way to go. but we were at this impasse and we were at that impasse for a period of months. and i was wrestling with this question, is there a way that we could put some kind of revenue on the table since the democrats are so insistent on this that might be able to allow us to break this logjam? is there way we could do it that would be consistent with our principals? consistent with the very important priority of having
pro-growth economic policy? and there were two enacts that -- facts that i thought we ought to take advantage of in a way. one is the fact we are currently facing the biggest tax increase in american history. we are about 13 months away from massive tax increases across the board, and as much as i hope we'll be able to prevent that, it's not obvious to me that we will have the political ability to prevent those from occurring. so that is reality number one we are facing a grave threat to our economy and to taxpayers. secondly, we are currently, we continue to be hobbled by what we all know is an absurdly ridiculous tax code. one that's terribly unfair and incredibly complicated, difficult to comply with, misallocates resources. so if struck me that maybe it would be worth something if we could avoid the biggest tax increase in american history and at the same time do it in a way that would generate
pro-growth tax reform. and that's how i developed this framework. that we proposed to our democratic colleagues. it had on -- it had a tax component and spending component. on the tax side the idea was how could we maximize economic growth? and since i believe very strongly that capital formation is one of the biggest drivers of economic growth, we said let's make sure we preserve the things that allow for capital formation. let's insist as one of the features of this proposal the capital gains, dividend rates, and estate tax rates that are currently in force become permanent. secondly, let's insist that we have a revenue neutral corporate tax reform that would lower the top rate to 25%, broad wren the base on which taxes are applied, and develop a territorial system so we could encourage among other things huge repatriotation of hundreds of billions of dolears overseas. there's been significant
bipartisan acknowledgement we need to do this kind of corporate tax reform. rob portman to his credit was a very, very passionate advocate for this. many of us on the compete spent a great deal of time on the specifics of what this would look like. i thought this was something we could and should do within this committee. thirdly on the individual income tax side, what i suggested is that we lower marginal rates. let's shoot for 20%. 20% reduction across the board in all marginal income tax rates, and offset the lost revenue by limiting the value of deductions. i think we could and should be flexible about the exact mechanics bye which we achieve that. i personally think the mechanism that marty felledstein developed where you limit it to percentage ever gross adjusted income was an appealing way but there are other ways. our proposal was we do it in a way that does not make the tax code less progressive than it is today. we maintain existing progress
sift with one exception and that is we would further restriction the value of deductions for the top two brackets such that we would generate a net $250 billion over 10 years, for deficit reduction. in addition to the $250 billion so generated, we propose that we have another $250 billion of revenue that would come from relatively noncontroversial sources, things like user fees, asset sales, the feedback that comes from higher compliance with a simpler tax code, for instance, the total revenue piece in our pro's -- proposal was $500 billion. we complemented that with a suggestion we have $750 billion in spending reduction. and we had long since given up on the idea we were going to block grant medicaid to the states for instance, or we were going to adopt a premium support model for medicare. as much as i think those policies are what we need to do, at this point we were looking for what's possible in
the time couple weeks. gf the clock ran out on the supercommittee. so we suggested that these spending reductions be comprised of items that had already been vetted by both sides and had at least been tentatively to some degree deemed acceptable to both sides, at least in the context of a broader agreement. combination is $1.25 trillion when you add in the savings ever -- the results from lower interest payments on less borrowings, you end up just under $1.5 trillion. what we offered was a reasonable offer. we offered to generate revenue as the democrats insisted. we suggested we do it through the very mechanism that every bipartisan group that has looked at this suggested which is tax reform, that broadens the base and lower the rates. we suggested that we do it in a fashion that would make the tax code even more progressive which is something the other side insisted that they have. we offered a combination in
which the spending reduction to revenue ratio was more favorable to the democrats that any of the bipartisan commiggetses had suggested. -- commissions had suggested. and we offered a plan that would allow us to modestly exceed the goal that was created for the committee in the legislation. nevertheless, the democrats said no. they need $1 trillion tax increase, that's what they were interested in. we weren't interested in doing that kind of damage to our economy. in the end why did it fail? i think there are a number of reasons and over time additional reasons may occur to me, but at the moment a few of the reasons -- one of the fundamental reasons i think is there was an asymmetry of incentives. i can tell you the republicans had a very powerful incentive to reach an agreement. six of us wanted to very, very badly. and it grows from just a sense that we all have of the urgency
of this crisis. i really don't think we have a great deal of time to hope that the markets are going to continue to lend money to a government that is pursuing an unsustainable fiscal policy. i can tell you republican conference meetings, and i have been present now for almost a year, virtually every single time we meet this topic comes up. how are we going to change the fiscal path we are on? there is a very, very strong sense of urgency on the part of republican members of this committee and beyond. there is also, let's face it, a very, very serious concern that the alternative to the supercommittee's success, the sequestration of funds, hits the defends budget way too hard. and there are a lot of republicans who are very concerned about that, and that created another incentive for us to try to find an agreement. on the other side i think there were forces pulling the democrats away from an agreement. let's face it, we have a presidential campaign that is now premised on the idea that
the president is running against the do-nothing congress. never mind that half of the congress is controlled by democrats. that is the fundamental message of his campaign and if the select committee had come to a great bipartisan agreement that had -- could pass both houses and be signed into law, it would rather muddle the message that the president is trying to run on. in addition, let's face it, many of the democrats have long hoped to dramatically cut the defense budget. well, that's exactly what happens in the sequestration, there was certainly a segment of that that finds the alternative to success perfectly acceptable. finally, there is also, i think we have all seen, a mood in the country that on the part of the far left, anyway, that productive people need to be punished for the big tax increase. that voice was present within the democratic caucus as well. i do want to stress there were some democrats on the committee who i think definitely wanted to accomplish something.
i just think they found it impossible to break from the left wing of their own caucus. i think going forward, i think it's clear what we need to do. we need to focus on maximizing economic growth. we need to focus on transforming the big drivers of our deficits into a sustainable fashion. i guess i'm going to have to bolt soon. a lot of time for questions here. i think the big questions here about the size of government and the role of government and the questions that divided us at some level will await a -- another election cycle for further clarity and guidance from the votes. -- voters. in the meantime there's things we'd into do. number one, we need to stick to the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that are scheduled. i think it's important they be
reconfigured so they don't land disproportionately on our defense budget, but we need to make sure they happen. the second thing is we ought to accept maybe we can't persuade our democratic friends to reform the tax code, let's do the pieces we can do. let's try to move to a territorial system. let's close some of the egregious loopholes like the ethanol features that we voted successfully on in the senate. on the spending side, likewise, let's if we couldn't agree to a big grand bargain, let's take the individual items. for which there really ought to be broad bipartisan consensus, reducing corporate welfare for instance, agricultural subsidies, even asking federal employees to contribute more for their retirement benefits. these are things that both sides ought to be able to agree on. i would say if there is a silver lining to the failure of the committee, perhaps it is that we discovered or for some of us rediscovered that there are a great deal of places where we can have very
substantial savings for taxpayers, by all means let's do what we can. thank you very much. >> we are all governed by somebody else's schedule. thank you very much for being with us, senator. we look forward to welcoming you back. you can continue this dialogue in the very near future. ladies and gentlemen, we stand adjourned.
>> senator toomey speaking at heritage this afternoon. he's headed back to capitol hill. a vote is underway in the senate on an amendment dealing with u.s. terrorist detainee policy. you can follow that vote in the senate debate on our companion network, c-span2. here on c-span the u.s. house comes back in in a little over an hour at 4:00 p.m. eastern. four bills under consideration today, including one to allow more skilled foreign workers in the u.s. we'll have that debate this afternoon here on c-span. >> i look at why the country does well or why it doesn't, i think it's fundamentally a values things. it's not natural resources. it's do you have -- these it two crucial values. do you believe the future can
be different than the present? and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. someplaces they have it and someplaces they don't. the u.s. we have exaggerated sense of how much control we have, but it's good for us to have that. >> this sunday hear questions from author and "new york times" op-ed columnist david brooks. he'll take your calls, emails, and tweets on a variety of topics, including his bobos, his best-selling books including "bobos in paradise" and latest "the social animal" david brooks, "in-depth, live this sunday at noon eastern on book t vice president on c-span2. >> and up next a discussion from this morning's "washington journal" on the latest tensions between the u.s. and pakistan. host: we are back with dan murphy, the council on foreign relations. we are talking about u.s. pakistan relationships after this recent nato strike and we
are just learning this morning the a.p. wire that pakistan general says the military believes the nato attack that killed 24 pakistani troops was, quote, a deliberate act of aggression, and pakistan will be boy scotting anup coming meeting in -- boycotting an upcoming meeting in germany. what do you make of this? guest: it's bad news. this whole thing is tragic. it's a little bit surprising the pakistanis would go to the length of saying that it was deliberate at this point. considering that the united states has said it wants to have an investigation. wants to get to the bottom of what was going on. it's not surprising to me they are boycotting this upcoming bond conversation or saying they are going to boycott it because they believe that provides them greater leverage in the relationship with the united states, in the relationship with afghanistan. they perceive that showing up,
meekly showing up after an event like this would make them look weak to the domestic audience, to the rest of the military which has suffered from this. and they believe that they just can't show up and look like they are kowtowing to the americans or bending to them. they are angry that they haven't yet gotten a formal apology from washington. host: will they get one? guest: i don't think they will until there is an investigation that determines that the united states did something wrong. for both political reasons, diplomatic reasons, and also legal reasons. we don't tend to apologize until we figure out what exactly happened and we decided we were in the wrong. host: what is the fallout from this latest incident? guest: so far you have had the border closed. the border between pakistan and afghanistan. and there is an estimate that about 40% of nato supplies, nontheethal supplies, not
people, not weapons, but other things you need to fight in afghanistan, go through that border. host: for u.s. troops, nato troops? guest: correct. so 40% is a lot. it is not possible as far as i understand it to continue to conduct operations at the tempo they are being conducted in a way we are operating in afghanistan unless you get that board he reopened in a matter of days, weeks, not months. host: what about the larger diplomatic relationship? guest: we have been on a downward slight now for at least the past year. you have seen it punctuated by various crises. americans, remember, the bin laden raid, the pakistanis think all the way back to january or december of last year when there was this american c.i.a. contractor who killed two pakistanis, another one got killed in the ensuing problem in the street. raymond davis. they think back to that and see that was another crisis in the relationship that wasn't handled particularly well.
and even before that, there was the wiki leaks release of very damaging, politically damaging statements come interesting pakistan's military leadership that made them look back. you have had kind of a series of steady drumbeat of crises that have taken this relationship from what was a manageable level, not especially good, never beyond the frustrating down to a real crisis level, and you don't see a lot of signs that this will pick up in the near future. host: "the washington post" this morning has the timeline, a tenuous partnership under pressure. a look how recent events have strained u.s.-pakistan relations. it goes through the events you talked about. so what could pakistan do next? as part of response to what they see as an intentional act by the united states? guest: they have closed the border. the other thing they say they are going to do is in about two weeks' time they have demanded that the united states remove
its drone -- droughns that essentially fly from an air base inside pakistan. these are the droughns that are used at least reportedly used to attack terrorists who are based on pakistan's border, but inside of pakistan. and pakistani media is reporting that the uae sent an dell case to slam bad to request that pakistan -- to islamabad to request that pakistan change its mind on that decision. because apparently u.a.e. is the country that's leasing that base and sublease it is to the united states. and so i think they are playing a front game for the united states to try to diplomatically resolve that one. my understanding is the c.i.a. believes that those droughns remain absolutely essential in going after terrorists, including al qaeda, remaining al qaeda terrorists. host: the "wall street journal" editorial this morning, the lead, pakistan's border outrage. they write this that the
pakistanis should think harder about what a break with america would mean. washington would cut off aid and possibly place on the list of state sponsors for terrorism. the u.s. would have no choice but to build even closer ties with india, including a larger role for kabul. american has a national survival interest in denying terrorist as sanctuary and ensuring weapons of mass destruction don't call fall in their hands. it's lonely in the region if china is your only friend. >> this is true. pakistan doesn't have good options. but pakistan has successfully played the weaker of the two parties in the relationship with the united states for years now. and what that peace may not make clear, at least in what you quoted is is the extent to which pakistan's weakness is also a threat to the united states. if this was a strong state, if this was russia during the cold war, and a real adversary, then we could afford to treat it
that way. we could say, well, they'll take care of themselves. they are an adversary, they don't deserve our assistance, they can't be counted on and we shouldn't respond accordingly. the problem is if we do leave them to fend for themselves, as this suggests, then there is the potential they will be destabilized, and remember this is a country of nearly 200 million people. the estimate is that by mid century it will be the fourth largest country in the world after the u.s., india, and china. it's a country with a fast-growing nuclear arsenal, and one of the larger nuclear arsenals at this stage, and a country that has the potential to fall even further into extremism, terrorism, so on, which makes it a potentially very dangerous place. . as much of the strengths as well as the weaknesses. host: for both the u.s. and pakistan, the better is to repair the alliance.
in the words of robert gates to "keep working at a troubled marriage." they say sometimes the relationship has tore hit bottom in order to bounce back. this is where we are with pakistan. guest: i wish we could say we are at the bottom and it often looks that way but it's looked that way for the past year. we need to remember there have been points in this relationship where it did rupture. throughout the 1990's we almost had no relationship with the pakistanis except very narrow ones and that is because we had cut assistance, we had put sanctions on pakistan so they have suffered that before. and it didn't improve their behavior. in fact it made it worse. it will be worse for us and it will be worse for them. just because that's true doesn't mean we can't get there. that's frightening about it. host: "new york times"
editorial -- host: what questions will be answered? guest: well, unfortunately, these type of investigations often leave both sides thinking they didn't get to the bottom of it. but the real question here is -- what did happen, why did the united states continue apparently, at least according to the pakistanis, why did u.s. forces continue to strike this pakistani outpost even after the word had come back through the chain of command that this was a pakistani outpost, that this wasn't taliban, that they ought to stop? there is a real question whether it's a simple communications breakdown or more troublingly, if the united states or at least the forces that were engaged in the fight believed that the pakistanis at the base were assisting and working very directly with the taliban. and having talked to a number
of u.s. military officers who have spent time in that area, many of them if not all of them are convinced that on multiple occasions they have experienced a situation where they believe that the pakistanis were at fault. that the pakistani military was in some way directly helping militants who were firing down on them inside afghanistan. it's quite possible that was the case. and then lately there have been other theories that perhaps the taliban were essentially taking advantage of a difficult situation and sort of confusing u.s. forces by faking shelter near the pakistani base and both sides got very confused in the firefight that ensued. host: it sounds like there's 10, 15-minute window there that people, investigators will be looking at. here's a quote at the end of the "washington post" article this morning --
guest: well, maybe. they may have known it was a military post. they may not have known who was firing at them. there have been other incidents where at least it's reported that the pal ban essentially took over a pakistani military post. the pack stancey who were based there had fled and they fired out in h from there. at that point u.s. or afghan forces can't really be sure who's firing at them even if the flag at the top of the base looks like a pakistani flag. so there's a lot of room for confusion here beyond a 10 or 15-minute window but maybe not a two-hour window. guest: well, false information or essentially a leading attack. they could have sent forces in, infiltrated across the line, then retreat back directly to the base where they would draw
fire on the pakistani base. host: is pakistan an ally of the united states? guest: yes and no. that's why when we talk about this crisis being something that could really rupture the relationship why it's possible because in many ways we have very different interests in the region than pakistan does. but it's also the case that in many ways we are allies. pakistan and the pakistani military, pakistani intelligence for all of the things that they are doing wrong they are also in a fight against pakistan-based terrorist groups that are trying to kill them. and which would be very dangerous if they succeeded. so we have some allies. we have some adversaries. many of them are in the same state and that's what's so complicated here. host: why the ballout for the united states when this was a nato air attack? guest: it's essentially u.s. forces. it's perceived being u.s. forces. whether it's nato, u.s., afghan, all of them are
essentially under in many ways u.s. command if they were special forces they most certainly were u.s. forces. democrat from albany, georgia. you are on the air. caller: can't we all just get along? that's my comment. why can't america come home, bring all of the soldiers home from every country, get out of those countries and please come home? host: why can't america come home from pakistan-afghanistan region? guest: i don't think the obama administration in its heart would argue with that. i think in many ways they are trying to bring u.s. forces home. and their attempt to bring -- drawdown u.s. forces, having ramped them up, will be what they're trying to do certainly over the next six months and reportedly till about 2014 when they suggest they'll bring them
down to something around 20,000. i know that's not zero, but it's significantly lower than where they are now. which is up near 80,000, 90,000. but the problem is that bringing u.s. forces home from afghanistan right now very quickly has the potential to leave that place such a mess that you might come to regret it. and that's the kind of situation that we faced before 9/11. nobody wants to see another resurgeans of a group like al qaeda or anything -- resurgence of a group like al qaeda or anything sill or a war that havings suffered throughout much of the 1990's. so a very rapid, quick drawdown, although that might be immediately good for u.s. forces who would no longer be in the line of fire, would probably leave a mess that we or somebody else would end up having to clean up or facing even worse consequences. host: "wall street journal" this morning -- afghanistan officials seek enduring support from the united states." you see the graph there.
the building blocks, u.s. assistance to afghanistan has been climbing. in 2012 the request likely to reach almost $20 billion there. it says afghan officials are bringing simple message to western powers at an international conference on afghanistan. afghanistan's future that begins this week in germany. don't abandon us like the russians did. this is the conference, by the way, that we learned just moments ago that pakistan plans to not attend in ramifications -- in fallout from these nato strikes. guest: the gentlelady from and pakistan is also sending a message from this if they are not part of the conference, being essentially afghanistan's largest and most important neighbor, they have the potential to spoil the future of afghanistan. they are certainly using that with leverage with us, with the afghans, everybody knows that to have a successful and stable afghanistan in the future you need a minimal buy-in from all
of its neighbors. they don't have to be happy with it but accept what that future looks like. right now pakistan is not happy and is showing that by not showing up at the conference. host: here is foreign aid for pakistan. both total, security and economic aid reaching about $17 billion, $18 billion. and another $3 billion more additional in 2011. so we're talking about $20 billion since about 2002 for pakistan. how is the money used? guest: first of all, let's be clear, it's a lot of money but you just also gave the figure of about $20 billion request for a single year in afghanistan. so that should put it in a certain amount of perspective in terms of the scale that we're talking about here. but it is a lot of money. about $14 billion or so has been spent on military related things at least. and a lot of that money
actually fallings in the category what they -- falls in the category of coalition funds which is reimbursements of missions that the pakistanis themselves have taken during that 10-year period. so pakistanis say they are doing things along the afghan border to support the war in afghanistan. some of which are true. some of which are less true, but they come at a cost. so some of that money is meant to reimburse for that. and some of that is win over the pakistanis, to get them do do the things we want them to do and we know that is not particularly successful. host: matt smith says the i.s.a. berthed the taliban with funding. we have the best things money can buy. guest: they are the successor organizations of the mujaheddin that we and the saudis and the pakistanis did assist in the 1980's. but there's been a lot of water
under the bridge send the 1980's and the united states did pull away from support of any of those groups for a considerable period of time during which they became even more radical and the pakistanis refeigned a hand with many of these groups during that 10-year period where we were absent. and that's a big part of the problem that we face today. so, yes, there was a berth that the united states was a part of but there was -- bisht that the united states was part of but an adolescence that the united states is paying for too. host: let's go to an independent from north carolina. you are on the air, sir. caller: i wonder if the gentleman speaks any regional languages? and the second question is, i'm wondering what's your -- if you have any comments on the pakistani nuclear weapons in
conventional western media that it's up for grabs, that militants might one day grab a hold of it, you know, do we have to be really afraid because some mill stants could end up with nuclear weapons, i wonder if you can come on that sort of ridiculous propaganda line? guest: unfortunately i don't speak regional languages except for english. i'm fortunate that pakistan and india both use english as their official language. so government officials operate in english, are all very articulate and capable of conducting meetings in english and so on. of course i wishry spoke many other languages. there hasn't been enough time in my career for that. host: before you answer the next part, what is your background in this area? guest: sure, i started off in an academic setting. i was teaching at princeton university in the politics
department. i came to the state department, i was teaching u.s. foreign policy. i came to the state department, worked on the policy planning staff which is a mini think tank which supports the secretary of state. it was during that time which i shifted over to a south asia portfolio. i picked up the region. came to the council on foreign relations and been there almost five years working on similar issues. so that's my basic background and did my ph.d. work at princeton as well. in terms of the nuclear issue, the caller makes a good point, raises a good question. because there was recently an article in "the atlantic" probably a couple weeks ago entitled "the ally from hell" or something along those lines, and it kind of gave are the standard litany of all the reasons why we should be scared of pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
and all of the concerns we should have. some of them, as the caller points out, is overblown. the pakistani military has a very significant interest in protesting its nuclear arsenal. not just because they want to protect it from al qaeda or terrorists, but because they want to protect it from india. and they perceive that india is a threat to pakistan and india would try to naturalize pakistan's nuclear capability and they believe that even the united states might try to neutralize pakistan's nuclear capability. that is they could remove it, seal it off, destroy it or somehow roll back their program. so they have every interest in protecting their nuclear art national and all of the -- arsenal and all the facilities around it. they put a lot of effort into doing it. i think they have for the most part succeeded in ways that make it very difficult to get access and would make it nearly impossible for either the united states or india to roll
it back or shut it down and very difficult for a terrorist organization to get its hand on it. the bottom line problem, though, is that pakistan remains a very kind of tumultuous place. it is facing crisis after crisis . we have seen repeatedly the very sensitive places and people have been killed or attacked and we can't assume their nuclear arsenal is entirely safe from that when you have the world's most sophisticated terrorist like al qaeda and the world's fastest growing nuclear program in the same country and you have clear problems of political and domestic rin stability, you have to be worried about it. so it's not quite as bad as maybe some of the news articles make out. but this is a problem and this is yet another reason why it would be useful if the united states could somehow -- and this isn't going to be easy -- get a better working relationship with the state moving forward.
host: rob, go ahead. the clerk: the thing that gets -- the call: the thing that gets me is like a kid getting hold of a .44 at a family gathering. how trustworthy really is an ally that you have to bribe daily to stay in their good graces? host: daniel markey. guest: it's a matter of trying to find some common interests. it has been frustrating. i think some u.s. officials based inside pakistan often describe it in ways that are not dissimilar. sort of squabling. a lot of strange requests that they don't quite understand. there is a cultural barrier to some degree. we don't always think or speak in the same way even though we may be speaking english. it may not be easy to understand what the other side wants. but there are fundamental and underlying differences of interest and this is an important point. in afghanistan in particular,
both the united states and pakistan do want stability in afghanistan at some basic level. neither country wants to see other country unravel in the way it has in the past. however, pakistan wants to retain a significant influence in afghanistan as well, and they are worried about an indian influence in afghanistan. talking about a destabilized afghanistan that pakistan had influence in and unstable afghanistan with india influence, they would want to see a unstable afghanistan. we don't want to see the region gauge of a proxy civil war. and so there is a difference of opinion. there's a difference of priority. and many of these differences then essentially boil down to these kind of crisis events like this border incident that
we saw just in the past couple of days. we're not necessarily working completely cross-purposes but in important ways we are. it's not just a family squabble. it's something more significant than that host: do the pakistanis view a -- essentially india? guest: not necessarily. i think that they have been upset with the version of afghanistan. they haven't liked hamad karzai from the start. they believe he was too pro-yeas and nays are ordered. more than that they believe he was relatively weak among posh tune leaders. even though he is posh tune, they believe he was -- postoon, they believe he was a weak leader. and those who had a lot of indian support, iranian support, and so they see them
as essentially being the ones running afghanistan as long as karzai's in place. they have been essentially railing against this for the past decade and have felt that karzai-dominated, northern alliance-driven afghanistan is not in their trfment they want to for the past decade we have been unwilling to entertain that.
guest: this is a troubling story because it suggests that the haqqani network which has gotten a fair amount of attention recently in part because of admiral mullen's comments as he was leaving washington just before his retirement, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, got up in front of congress and stated that the haqqani network was in many ways an arm of the pakistani intelligence service. and to read a story about the extent to which the haqqanis are able to continue to sew instability inside afghanistan, to terrorize, to asass mate, to essentially target the pillars of whatever authority and structure that the united states is trying to leave in place as it tries to drawdown from afghanistan, this is incredibly frustrating but it also shows the extent to which
this remains a very tough fight. and we may be on a timeline that i described before where obama -- president obama wants to get our forces out by 2014 or the vast majority of them. this may be too aggressive of a timeline given the nature of the threat we face. host: that's a tweet from a c-span junky which says, please ask mr. markey if it's being drawn by the c.i.a. rather than military? how many c.i.a. will stay even though we leave? guest: this is the argument about whether or not we could continue to atact terrorists like al qaeda members, the taliban and so on with a much lighter footprint. that is, could we leave essentially 10,000 or fewer u.s. forces, including special forces, c.i.a. and so "encore booknotes" the ground in afghanistan with drones and airpower and target many of the groups that are most troubling to us without having a heavy
military footprint of nearly 100,000 at its height? most military officials and experts suggest this ask too difficult for us because that smaller footprint would be under constant attack and because by pulling away the military you would also leave a broader instability that would make it very difficult to get allies, to tell you who the bad guys are and to help you move around the country and conduct counterterror operations. so there probably is a number well short of 100,000 where the united states could maintain a presence in afghanistan and continue to conduct significant counterterrorism operations but it's under a very light footprint that some are suggesting that would primarily be c.i.a. and special forces. host: talking about u.s.-pakistan relations. harris is next, an independent in gainesville, florida. caller: yes, just wanted for a
little specific on this attack which was by u.s., nato, along with a national army. according to the reports which i have received which is in the pakistani press, the attack lasted between four to six hours and during the course of the attack, the pakistani army unit had radioed to the regional headquarters that they were under attack and this -- 77th brigade of the pakistani army which completed a three-stage operation from january of this year and ended i think the last day of october. and they had cleared up that region pretty significantly. plus the u.s. centcom general was in islamabad two weeks ago and they had actually
pinpointed with g.p.s. coordinates were the posts are and apparently everyone knew which post pakistani had, which post the others had. bottom line, it is our fault we went there and attacked thefment host: all right. dan markey. guest: it may be. i agree with your characterization of everything you said in terms that this have the way that the pakistanis have shared the information publicly. probably the vast majority of it is absolutely true. i have no particular reason to doubt it. but there are at least two things that could have happened that would in some ways reduce the culpability of the u.s. in this case. the first would be if they simply made a terrible, terrible mistake. and i wouldn't put it past our forces despite all of their capabilities to potentially make a mistake and to continue making a mistake for a considerable period of time if
the firefight got especially intense. this is possible. i don't know how likely it is but it have possible. and the second is the scenario i sketched out earlier the idea that, yes, they would have known this is precisely what this was, this was a pakistani outpost, they had been marked, demarcated, shared with them with this information, but they have been overrun by taliban forces or others and they were responding to fire that they were faking from there under the assumption they were taking it from enemy forces. this is also possible. the only thing i know is here in washington i don't think we know all that much yet about what really happened. and the fax fakts will come out. my broader sense would be i have a strong doubt about the idea that the u.s. military or nato forces would have undertaken this operation having been ordered to do so from senior military officials.
in other words, i have very significant doubts that senior u.s. commanders woke up and decided that they needed to attack pakistani outposts on purpose. that to me just strains my sense of likelihood. but many other things could have happened and many people could have been at fault heading pretty high up the u.s. military chain and i do hope some sort of investigation begins to clear this up because the pakistanis have reasons to be upset. host: let's talk about pakistan's economy. take a look at what the c.i.a. world fact book puts together. there are about 187 million in the country of pakistan. 22 years is the median age. 66 years is the life expectancy .
host: what does that mean for pakistan in that region and its role that it plays? guest: well, the look at the numbers is useful but i think it may understate the severity of the economic crisis that pakistan is in and is likely to be in for some period of time. you noted the median age being 22. so something like 60% of the country is under the age of 23 or 24, and that will continue apparently if current projections hold for about the next 30 years. you have this huge number of young pakistanis who in -- host: unemployed? guest: under good circumstances they would be well educated, they would learn english, be able to participate in the global economy.
but the reality is that the vast majority of them are being poorly jeablingted and not prepared to enter into a global economy and not presented, even those who are well educated, with great opportunities. unlike, say, many of their counterparts in india who do have a growing economy that they can participate in and is globally interconnected, high tech, high skill jobs and opportunity are available to them. and pakistan unfortunately at this point in time none of that is especially true. many pakistanis who are quite skilled vote with their feet. they leave their country. they come to other countries, including our own, and leave behind a country that doesn't have especially good prospects at the moment for its economy. there is one bright spot. pakistanis and the indians are currently in negotiations to improve the degree of trade that flows between them. the pakistanis have publicly said they would grant most favored nation status to india
which would open up a whole lot of sectors to trade that have been closed until now. this is the kind of thing that would eventually, if pakistan can open its economy to india and become increasingly emmeshed in a regional economy that's growing very rapidly, india and china, if pakistan with participate in that effectively then they have a chance of providing employment to these young pakistanis. i would also say that the figure you cited, 15% unemployment, is probably a vast understatement of the degree of underemployment and unemployment in the country. many, many pakistanis depend on the employment of a skinsle member of their very extended family to provide income to them. and many of those members are working outside of the country. the degree of remit hanses from the persian gulf countries where millions of pack stance are living, sending back money to the country, absolutely essential to their economy right now but it's not a stable way to build an economy at home.
it's more of a band-aid solution in an a permanent one. host: democraticic caller, beaver falls, pennsylvania. caller: i have been waiting a while. what i was thinking when i was watches this, what we're talking about is a sick relationship. it's like if you're in a personal relationship that's sick, it's either all-out war or one of you gets out. and i'm going to extrapolate this a little bit. these people have to work out their problems. india and pakistan, everybody. they have to work out their own problems. and they're not doing it. i think the reason they're not doing it is interference. we need to get out of this mess. we need to just go home and let these people take care of their own problems.
host: tim, here is a tweet from oldbiker that says -- guest: well, the problem with pakistan is we certainly can't live with them. you can't live without them either. they're big, they're in a strategic location in the world that will become inthink increasingly important over time because they border india which is a rising asian country. they border china which is obviously a rising global economy and global power. and they're not far from the arab middle east. and so this is the place that we have tried to disentangle ourselves from the past. back -- if we think back to pre-9/11 we had next to no relationship with pakistan. we had no relationship with the taliban in havings. we got back into this part of the world because of the tragedy of 9/11. the past decade has been a
decade of us sort of fumbling around trying to find solutions to bring to this troubled part of the world and facing enormous frustrations. so the question is not sort of can we leave it apallone because the answer, at least historical answer is, no, it will come and find us. the real question is, can we do better at a lesser level of input, that is less troops, less money, less attention, or can we begin to make the relationship work with the resources we have been putting in? we have been frustrated pretty much no matter what we've done and the problem is not just us but it's also them and we need to try to sort it out. i don't think that pulling away solves the problem. to the other question, are we going to invade pakistan, are we going to occupy pakistan? this is an enormously difficult country to run. nobody in washington in their right mind would try to occupy
a country the size of pakistan, particularly after the experiences of iraq and afghanistan. there's no stomach for it. there's no interest in it. this will have to be a relationship that we have to sort out with the government or people of pakistan and hopefully more as partners than as adversaries. host: let me get this tweet in. guest: yeah, the iran story is quite interesting. i think there had been times in the past 10 years where iranians were worried that the united states was using our wars in afghanistan and iraq to encircle them. but i don't think that having watched the troubles that we faced in both of those countries that many in tehran would currently believe that. our poor relationship with pakistan has, at least according to some sources in
iran, opened up potential relationship between iran and pakistan. but the pakistanis have their issues with iran too. and i don't see that as a significant problem we need to worry about so far. host: thanks for fake talking to our viewers. >> the u.s. house gavels in at legislative work at 4:00 p.m. eastern, about half an hour from now. among the bills, one allowing more skilled foreign workers in the u.s. later this week, the house will take up a bill undering the presidential election campaign fund. while the house coverage at 4:00 here on c-span. the senate debating their defense policy bill. they rejected a provision dealing with the capture and handling suspected terrorists. follow the senate on c-span 2 and the house live at 4:00 on c-span. we'll go to the white house. alan krueger made a surprise visit at the briefing today. he talked about the importance of extending the payroll fax cuts. we'll show you as much as we
can gfer the house session gets under way at 4:00. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. sorry. i didn't hear that. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i apologize for the delay this afternoon. i have with me the president's chairman of -- the chairman of the president's council of economic advisors, recently confirmed by the senate. he is here to discuss with you the economic importance of the payroll tax cut extending and expanding it into next year as well the importance it has had to our economy and to 160 million americans this year. so what i'd like to do is have him go at the top, for you to
address whatever questions you have on the policy issues to him. you may have some political questions which are more appropriately directed towards me. i will remain here to take them from you, and then i will let him go back to his important and difficult work and then i will remain to take questions on other subjects. with that i give you alan krueger. >> thanks, jay. i thought i'd say a few words about how the economy is doing and the importance of extending expanding payroll tax cut. this is a critical time for the economy, and i think it's a time where the economy can use more medicine to strengthen and sustain the recovery. as you know a year ago the congress passed and the president signed two percentage point reduction in the payroll tax. that tax cut has provided important support for the
economy, especially at a time when the economy was hit with some shocks such as rising gasoline prices, and supply -- earthquakes in japan and the earthquakes in europe. the president expanded the payroll tax cut to 3.1% on the employee side as well as cutting payroll taxes for employers, focusing the payroll tax cut on small businesses and businesses that are expanding. i think the economic argument for these proposals is quite compelling. i think across the spectrum of economists you would find support for applying this type of medicine to the economy now. the economy has been recovering. we've had nine quarters of growth. but the pace of growth has been moderate. we still have great many
underutilizes resources. unemployment rate is still 9%. we have underutilizes factoriesed and resources. -- underutilized factories and resources. the economy is facing weak aggregate demand that economists speak for not enough spending in the economy. and i think you can trace the reasons for the weak demand directly to the problems that caused the economic crisis. families borrowed too much in their runup to the crisis. they are now paying down debts. we had a severe bubble in the housing market, and residential construction has been quite flat in the recovery. really unprecedented to have a recovery where residential construction has not been increasing. and then on top of that state and local governments which retain employees when they were getting support from the recovery act had been laying
off workers. so i think those are the reasons why the recovery has not been stronger and at the same time i think it's important to provide insurance for the economy against further shocks, possible shocks down the road. if the payroll tax is not extended, then the typical family with $50,000 in earnings would face $,000 fax increase start -- $1,000 tax increase starting in january. what the president has proposed is extending that tax cut and expanding it so the typical family would have about a $1,500 tax cut and as i mentioned other components in the jobs act, the employer side, tax cuts, as well as extending unemployment benefits. so with that i'm happy to take some questions. >> thank you very much. are you asserting that the extension of the cut would actually make the economy better or are you just saying that allowing to expire would
make the economy worse? >> i think both are true. the president proposed extending and expanding the tax cut so the beneficial effect that we saw from the last round would be larger. i also think that the tax cuts on the employer side are particularly well designed. the c.b.o. has concluded that the type of incremental payroll tax that the president has proposed has pretty high bang for the buck compared to other things that can be done to strengthen the economy. and if the tax cut expires, as i said, that would be $1,000 increase in faxes for the -- taxes for the typical family which would be a drag on economic growth going forward and you can see economists across the spectrum who have noted that this could pose a severe drag for growth going forward if it's allowed to expire. >> if it's extended at the same level, which they're talking about 2%, that wouldn't do
anything to to increase demand and spending? >> it would support the economy. >> in terms of unemployment insurance, the extensions, is failure to extend that, would that have a similar effect on aggregate demand? >> if you look at c.b.o.'s list, i think they looked at 11 different policies being considered, extending unemployment benefits had the biggest effect on the economy per dollar spent. and the unemployed tend to have a very high propencity to spend their benefits because they pay bills and little income going in running down savings. so i think extending unemployment benefits as well would help to support the recovery going forward. >> senate majority leader reid has said -- has warned that the failure to extend the payroll tax cuts could push the economy
into recession. some independent economists say the same. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i think what's clear is extending the payroll tax cut will strengthen the recovery. without it will be a drag on economic growth. 401-k's, if you look at -- forecasts, if you look at private sector forecast for fairly moderate growth. probably not strong enough to bring down unemployment without the -- without the extension of the payroll tax cut which is why the president proposed of extending it and expanding it. >> [inaudible] >> what i can say from looking at the evidence is that this is the medicine that we can use in the near term to help strengthen the recovery and to help provide insurance from the shocks coming. >> given the euro debt problem. how much debt to g.d.p. growth
do you expect? >> a number of economists says problems in the euro zone is a potential threat to the u.s. economy and economies worldwide. through both financial channels and through our exports, about 20% of our exports go to europe , i think if one looks at the potential problems for economic growth coming from europe, it even strengthens the argument for strengthening our own demand here at home. the payroll tax cut is i think an extremely sensible way of doing that. looking at the developments in the world, i think it helps to strengthen the argument for the president's proposal. >> given that the payroll tax cuts goes to the social security trust fund, are you not concerned at all that, a, this will have an affect on the social security trust fund and, b, why do this every year? what you're calling for, what
the president's calling for, the tax increase will just be delayed until january of 2013, why not just do the structural change so we don't have to have the same conversation every year? >> well, on your first question, i don't think this jeopardizes the social security trust fund or the solvency of social security. the trust fund is made whole by general revenues. the social security chief actuary has stated that this does not affect the solvency of social security. moreover, the president proposed a way to pay for the extension and expansion of the payroll tax cut as well as the other components of the american jobs act. so over the 10-year period the budget would be held neutral with respect to these cuts. on the second question, looking at the pace of the recovery, looking at the threats that we face today, i think it's
critical that we extend the payroll tax cut and expand it. down the road we expect that the economy will be stronger and that a natural process of recovery takes over. the -- >> january, 2013, do you expect? >> let me just say that recovery has been more sluggish than one might expect coming out of a recession because of the nature of the problems that created the crisis, because consumers built up so much debt that they're working their way down because of problems in the housing market. we're seeing the economy heal. it's just not lealing fast enough. so these measures would help to sustain the recovery and down the road such measures won't be necessary. >> a quick follow-up. it seems the language that many in the white house and the administration are using about whether or not the payroll tax cut recollection tension would be paid for, it's shifting a
little bit in terms of how -- tax cut would be paid for, it's shifting a little bit. would the president extend the payroll tax cut if it were not paid for? >> the president proposed a way to pay for it. the senate democrats came up with an alternative way to pay for it which the president has said he could support. i think both of those approaches are sensible approaches. and i think what we need to do is look for a way to extend the proposal -- extend the tax cut which makes economic sense. >> the joint tax committee has said about a third of small businesses would be taxed additionally if you had to pay -- the so-called millionaire tax. would that be hurtful for the
economy, the pay-for, in terms of taxing them additionally? >> the tax on incomes above $1 million a year i think would hit very few small businesses. the vast majority was 99% of individuals with small business income would not be affected by this. so the vast majority of employers would be unaffected by what was proposed to pay for the payroll tax extension. >> mitch mcconnell has said that you're proposing to put a permanent tax on millionaires in exchange for this temporary tax cut. what would be the effect of the surtax on millionaires economically? >> well, the way to analyze economic effect is to say, when does the tax cut take effect, when does the tax increase to pay for it take effect? the tax cut would be immediate. it would be for virtually all
working families. focused on families with moderate incomes. so then look at what the marginal propencity to spend out of income for those different groups that are affected by the tax cut and a way that it's paid for. the families that would be affected by the tax cut tend to have a higher marginal propencity to spend which would provide more support for the economy to spend. those in upper income groups with incomes above $1 million a year tend to have lower marginal propencity to consume. i think if we're thinking about how will this affect the economy in the short term and long run, this will strengthen the economy now and ensuring in a it's done in a fiscally responsible way. >> can you clarify -- are you said it would be $1,000 tax increase if it is and $1,500 -- >> the question is what baseline do you use.
if you compare the status quo, if the payroll tax cut is not extended that would mean starting in january an increase in payroll taxes for virtually all workers of 2%. for a family earning $1,000 -- earning $50,000, that would be a $1,500 increase. what the president has propose is extending the -- the 3.1% compared to if it's allowed to expire. >> you did a study a few months ago suggesting that people out of work they have less time spend looking for work. how does that square with giving people more benefits and stay unemployed longer? >> and i hope you read the study. >> it was written about it extensively. >> there's a lot of research on the effect of extended
unemployment benefits, unemployment benefits more generally. i think there is consensus in the economics profession there are tradeoffs involved. particularly if you look at normal times when we're close to full employment that higher benefits or extended benefits do have some effect on surge activity. that effect is creately reduced now when we have over four job seekers for every vacancy. the effect of any individual perhaps taking more time to find a job that's suitable for him or her will have less effect when there are other job seekers available for those positions. that's on the one hand. on the other hand, another effect of unemployment benefits is it provides critical income support for families when they are going through a very difficult time. the unemployed tend to have a high marginal propencity to spend out of the been fits that they received to pay --
benefits that they received to pay for their mortgages and to pay for food and so on which supports the economy more generally. the c.b.o. when it looked at it and weighed these different factors came to the conclusion which i think is a sensible conclusion that extending unemployment benefits provides the biggest bang for the buck in terms of strengthening consumption in the economy and creating jobs. taking all of those factors into account. whether the white house would accept payroll tax cut or the u.i. extension without it being paid for. you said that the president had a proposal and the senate democrats had a proposal and they both make sense. i think what i'd like to know is whether it would be ok to do it without either one of those and just would that be one good outcome? >> don't want to go into what might happen when the senate hasn't voted on the bill that
senator casey has proposed. they are going to vote on that later this week. i can tell you from my perspective and i believe the administration's perspective, doing this in a way that makes economic sense is the way to proceed. i'm sure that the president would consider whether it's a sensible economic strategy going forward. but i think it's first important that the senate consider and the legislation that's before it which does pay for this with a way that the senate democrats have proposed. >> some say it makes economic sense in a recession to have some spending even if it does increase the deficit long term. would you agree with that? >> you know, i would need to look at what the proposals are and, you know, wait until that point. but hopefully jay can have me back. >> yeah. i'll have you back. >> you don't have -- in a perfect world you don't -- does
it make sense in this economy to actually find that pay-for for this? >> i don't want to go into specifics of what makes sense and what doesn't. i think at this point the right fiscal path for the country is to try to support -- try to support the economy in the short run and do it in facecally responsible way which is over a period of a 10-year window which is common to have it be paid for. that's what the president has proposed. >> ok. >> you're open to not paying for it? >> i think i've gotten it and alan has gotten it three times. we are not going to speculate what might not happen if senate republicans do not hear the vast call of the majority of americans of extending the payroll tax cut and paying for it in a way that is entirely economically responsible and broadly supported by the
american people, americans of all political persuasions. so that vote hasn't happened yet. we certainly hope enough senators vote for it, that it will then move to the house, pass there and be signed into law by the president. it would certainly be nice -- a simple majority of senators were allowed to vote on this, pass it and send it to the house and the president's desk. we certainly know that the vast majority of the american people support it. we are not going to speculate about end games if certain things do or don't happen in the senate. i have a couple more for alan because i have a heart out for me. >> i knew there was a reason you wanted me. >> the national debt. the top $15 trillion a couple weeks ago and it's now bearing down on 100% of g.d.p. does that worry you? >> i think it's very important that we get on a sustainable fiscal path. i think it's also important that we measure the debt in the right way. looking at net debt held by the
but hold that aside, the president has proposed in september, gave a proposal to the supercommittee or joint committee of congress to help put us on a fiscally sustainable path. i think that as we strengthen the economy in the short run we need to do two things at once. we need to strengthen the economy in the short run and we need to return to a fiscally sustainable path. >> congress just extended it to 2%, will that lower the unemployment rate next year? >> i think if you look at independent estimates from across the spectrum, they would predict that extending the payroll tax cut or expanding it would lead to a stronger economic growth and more employment than would otherwise be the case. >> just the extension, just the 2%, that would lower the unemployment rate? >> i think that would create more jobs compared to the
situation if it's not extended. >> what would be the unemployment rate? >> if you look at what it would be if it were not extended, i think we would have more job growth if extended, all else equal, it will lead to lower unemployment rate. we need to compare it to, how does it affect economic growth, how does it affect job growth compared to extending it than not extending it. >> would the white house consider regardless for the pay-for simply extending the payroll fax cut without an expansion? >> i am going to rewind what jay said. the senate is considering a bill later this week which has a way to pay for it. the president proposed a way to pay for it and we're open to economically sensible ways of trying to strengthen the economy and do it in a fiscally responsible way. >> thank you, alan. i appreciate it. thank you all. i will now let alan get back to
his economic work and we will take questions on your other issues. i regrettably have to leave here in about 15 minutes. before i take questions, i want to note that the vice president landed in baghdad earlier today on a visit. i think his health as vice president and -- eighth as vice president and even higher number when he was a senator in the last eight or 10 years. i want to note when president obama was running for this office made clear he would end the war in iraq responsibly. what we're seeing happen in these final six weeks of the year is the fulfillment of that promise where we are withdrawing the remaining u.s. forces from iraq and we are ending that war responsibly. and giving the iraqi people the
chance for a better future that they deserve and also maintaining an important strategic relationship with iraq. i would note having worked with the vice president during his first two years here it was a measure of the president's seriousness about iraq and seriousness about fulfilling his commitment that he asked the vice president to take on day-to-day management of this policy which is why he has traveled, as you know, so often to iraq over the last nearly three years. and with that i will take your questions. >> i heard from a lot of democrats in the last few weeks who are concerned about president obama possibly granting an exemption to catholic churches, hospitals and universities from the requirement that all insurance plans cover -- exemption. i wonder if you can shed any light on this decision. i know the president has not made a decision but i think some of these democrats are concerned that this is even
being discussed. can you explain why the president is considering an exemption and what is going into his decisionmaking? >> well, part of the process, jake, as you know is seeking and receiving public input before the guidelines that were announced by the secretary of health and human services will go into effect. that process did result in public input and as well as resulted in numerous comments from various folks who have concerns with this -- about this issue. the president has -- this decision has not yet been made. you can be sure we want to strike the right balance between expanding coverage, of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs. and that's the balance that will be sought as this decision is made. ben. >> believe it or not, i had a quick follow-up on the payroll tax. >> sure. >> i know you don't want to
comment on a senate vote that hasn't happened yet. i understand your point on that. what i'm asking is the president's point when he unveiled the payroll tax. he said then that every idea in his plan will be paid for. and he has said it dozens of times since then. i'm just wondering if he stands by that, that his proposals, including the payroll tax extension, he wants congress to pass them and wants them to be paid for. >> i will repeat what alan said and add a little bit to it. the -- as you noted in september, the president put forward a comprehensive proposal of the american jobs act that included with it the extension and expansion of the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. a tax cut that goes right to hardworking middle-class americans, a tax cut that has given an average of $1,000 extra in the average family's
wallet and would if expanded next year result in a $1,500 tax cut. that's very important for those families to help them make ends meet as we continue to emerge from the worst recession in our lifetime since the great depression and it's important for the economy because as alan noted earlier the payroll tax cut is widely viewed by economists, independent economists and forecasters to have a very positive impact on economic growth and job creation. the president believes that the best way to do this is the way he put forward with the pay-for that he put forward, he also believes that the pay-for the senate democrats put forward meets the principles he laid out and he looks forward to the senate voting on it. the proposal that senator casey has put forward later this week. it's the responsible thing to do. i think i noted the other day, if only senate republicans who say they will vote against this express as much passion about
the need to cut taxes for the middle class as they express to protect tax cuts and protect the incomes of millionaires and billionaires we might be able to get this done without much hullabalu. this, after all, is anyone surprised we are in a debate with republicans whether or not to cut taxes is the right thing to do with the middle class? i thought they were for it. this is for 160 million working americans and we will have a vote on that later this week. what you all are telling me is republicans are going to vote against it. they have to explain that. and the reason they're going to vote against it they say so far is because they don't want it to be paid for in a way that the vast majority of americans support that asks millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit extra. millionaires and billionaires who, as you know, based on the c.b.o. study and any others
have done exceptionally well, have seen their slice of the american pie grow as the middle class has been squeezed. so we certainly hope that senate republicans will hear the call of their constituents, reconsider their vote later this week and pass this with more than 60 votes and send it to the house. >> [inaudible] >> the president -- that the is the president's preferred choice. you asking me if only it were the case what this president wanted he got in whole and in full. and certainly that's what we would ask of the senate, that they would pass the american jobs act in its entirety as written by the president, proposed by the president. unfortunately thus far this has not hafment we have had one modest but important success working with the congress on one element of the jobs act and
that was the assistance to veterans, to hiring veterans. we hoped that congress will act on the payroll tax cut and expansion. i am not going to speculate about what congress might do and as alan said what pay-fors they might come up with if they vote this down, this very responsible provision, a proposal that will come forward in the senate later this week. .
iran has the response to believe the protect the diplomatic meigs in its country. iran has a response to believe the protect tip lo mattick personnel not to just protect them but to not assassinate them. this is another item in the catalog of particulars, particular transgressions that the irapian regime has taken. >> we break away as the u.s. house gaffles in for a number of bill this is afternoon. or on which the vote incurs an objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the
gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3012, the fairness for high skilled immigrants act of 2012 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 193, h.r. 3012, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3012, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i rise in support of h.r. 3012, the fairness for
high skilled immigrants act. i'd first like to thank chairman smith for his work and diligence and commitment on this issue. we wouldn't be here today without his efforts and his commitment to this. i want to thank ranking member conyers and the immigration subcommittee ranking member zoe lofgren. she has been instrumental in putting this bill together to make it something that we hope would pass today. and her work on the judiciary committee. the immigration and nationality act provides that the total number of visas made available to natives cannot exceed 7% of the total number of such visas made available in that year. the bill completely eliminates the per-country caps from employment visas and raises the per-country cap from 7% to 15% for family-based visas all without adding a single additional visa. in other words, there is no net increase in the total number of visas. and what i want members on both sides of the aisle to
understand or recognize is there is not a net increase in the total number of visas. but it does make important adjustments that will allow us to better service and fix legal immigration which is one of the commitments i have in working in this congress. while per country limits makes some limited sense in the area of family immigration, they make no sense in employment-based immigration. american companies treat all high-skilled immigrants equally regardless of where they come from. our immigration policy should do the same thing. h.r. 3012 creates a fair and equityible first come first serve system. american companies will do what they do best, hiring smart people to create jobs for americans. per country caps are the an tit cisof the free sh -- an theicis of the free country. it is the primary objective of american companies. this bill will make sure that employers meet that objective.
fears that this will lead to cheap labor is unfounded. it relies on the false assumption that the removal of these caps will have a negative impact on american workers. first, it removes the employment-based visas. some argue that this will replace it with cheap foreign labor which cannot and will not happen. current law prohibits u.s. employers from hiring foreign workers to fill these jobs unless there is insufficient u.s. workers who are willing, abled, qualified and available. this bill does not change this requirement but it does encourage high-skilled immigrants to stay and help build our economy rather than using the skills they use here. the second criticism i hear applies to the provision that raises the family-based per country base from 7% to 15%. they fear it will be a burden to our system.
to the contrary. those who benefit most under the family cap adjustment are law-abiding workers who demonstrated their respect for the rule of law by waiting in line for many years if not decades. an unmarried minor child in mexico whose son or daughter of a u.s. citizen will receive a green card in november of this year has been waiting in line since april, 1993. that's an 18 1/2-year wait. regardless -- rewarding those who are patiently waiting to come to this country legally will incentivize more people to enter our country legally through the means that we have set forth. this bill does not add a single new green card to the system. there's no trick or compromise involved. we are sending a message that we want people to come to america legally and we are sending that message without massive comprehensive reforms. this is a simple, straightforward and consistent with what i think most members from both sides of the aisle stand on the issue of immigration. this legislation is pro-growth, it's pro-jobs, and it's pro-family.
i'd like to thank the compete america and immigration voice for their fireless efforts in helping to get this bill passed and i thank chairman smith, ranking member conyers, and ms. lofgren for their work in helping to bring this bill forward. at this time i'd also -- i'd ask unanimous consent -- i'll withdraw that for a second. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you. i also rise in support of this bipartisan proposal that provides two small technical fixes to our country's immigration laws. i take the balance of the time that i have allotted to me to make this statement. the bill removes the so-called per country limits from applying to employment-based green cards. current immigration law provides 140,000 green cards annually to employ-based
immigrants. they do not permit 7% of the 140,000 vees rays. because of this per country limit a country like india with a population of 1.2 billion is limited to the same number of visas to a country like iceland with the population of 300,000 and a lot of ice. this makes no sense. and has resulted in a decades' long backlog from nationals of india and china and makes it impossible for certain u.s. employers to retract and retain certain essential workers that helps to keep america competitive indeed from china and india. there are many people trained in stem areas that we need to keep our country competitive. eliminating the per country base would treat everyone on a first come first serve basis. because the bill does not provide additional green cards it does not address the overall backlog. it treats those people more equitablely. and there is no unintended
consequence, this sfazed in slowly over three years. the bill also raises the country limit for family-based immigrants from 7% to 15%. this would have a similar effect of making the treatment such immigrants more equitable. these fixes are small but they mean a great deal to the people that they do help. h.r. 3012 is supported by quite a few business groups including the united states chamber of commerce, compete america and the american council on international personnel. and the supporter for advocates of american and immigrant families including the asian american justice center and national immigration law center. i, like my colleague on the other side, want to thank the people who were above me on the committee level, the chairman in particular, chairman smith, and ranking member of our subcommittee, zoe lofgren, who has worked with congressman chaffetz who worked so hard on this bill and commarme smith to get this bipartisan bill -- chairman smith to get this bipartisan bill through the committee and to the floor. it's important we get bipartisan bills through. and because of our chairman we
have that opportunity to do it on occasion to do such a thing. i ask my colleagues to support this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i now want to recognize the chairman of our committee, chairman lamar smith of texas, and yield to him such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time and thank him for the sponsorship of this legislation. . this bill introduced by congressman chaffetz does just that and i am happy to be a co-sponsor. the immigration nationality act generally provides the total number of families sponsored in employer sponsored green cards native to any one country cannot exceed 7% of the total number of green cards available each year. . because of these caps on green
cards and because some countries have more skilled workers that american employers want, natives of these countries must wait years longer than other countries. for foreign professionals of advanced degrees, green cards are immediately available to approved aply capts from most cupries. because employers seek so many employees from india and china, the per country caps result in green cards only being available to these these individuals who applied before november of 2007, four years ago. green cards are now available tooply cants from most countries who applied on or before september of 2005. but because employers seek to many -- so many workers, the per country cap result in green cards only being available to those from china who applied
before 2004 and from india before 2002. similar problems exist in the family green cards. that's why natives only get green cards if they first applied before june, 2000, 11 years ago. people from the philippines have had to wait until -- wait since 1998. this bill will do away with the cap entirely by 2015 and raises the family-sponsored per country cap from 7% to 15% this legislation makes sense. why should merp employers who seek green cards for skilled foreign workers have to wait longer because the workers are from india or china. american business employers have already proved to the u.s. government they need these workers that qualified americans are not available and that american workers will not be harmed. it makes sense to repeal the
employment-based per country caps. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3012 and before i yield back the balance of my time again, i want to thank the gentleman from utah for sponsoring this legislation. mr. chaffetz: i reserve. spero: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. co--- >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. moran. mr. moran: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation and i want to speak on its behalf. i was -- i heard about a conversation that bill clinton had with steve jobs. the apple computer has about 200,000 employees outside of the borders of the united states. -- of the united states, i
understand. and i believe it's walter isaacson in his biography of steve jobs talks about a conversation he had with president clinton who asked, what would it take to goat these employees back in the united states. steve jobs said, give me 30,000 highly skilled workers in the united states and we'll get those jobs back. that's what this is about. it's having access within the united states to the most highly skilled engineers, scientists, mathematicians that will in turn generate the kind of economic activity that we all want in terms of job creation and national economic growth. now, in the northern virginia area, we're very fortunate. we have a strong high tech sector. but for that tech sector to continue to grow and expand, we have got to have a work force
not only adequate in terms of quantity but particularly in terms of quantity -- in terms of qualityity. we know -- quality. we know how important tech firms will be in the global economy of the 21st century but i don't think we fully take into account how important this kind of legislation is where we can continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. who, in fact, do want to go to graduate school here and do want to continue residing in the united states and to work here, applying their talents and skills. now, under current law, employment-based and family sponsored immigrant visas can't exceed 7% of the total of those visas made available that year. that cap hinders the ability to have high tech firms in the united states to hire the top talent from countries like
india and china, who have a disproportionately large number of individuals with the education and experience sought after by many of these technology companies. it doesn't make sense to continue enforcing outdated, arbitrary caps that make it harder for countries to hire employees that they need and we need to grow and prosper within the united states. this legislation eliminates per country limits on the allotment of high-skilled green cards without adding a single additional green card to the system and increases per country limits from 7% to 15%, more than doubles, in the family-based immigration system, reducing substantial back logs in the family-based system as well. it doesn't add any visas but more rationally distributes the allotment readily available. mr. cohen: i yield the gentleman such time heas may consume an needs. mr. moran: i'll try to be
judicious in using that time. i thank my good friend from memphis for yielding me the time. this legislation is modest in scope. but it is very important because it -- it put this is country in the right direction of economic growth. now, i want to say, i wish we would set out ambitions hiring -- ambitious hiring in the whole area of immigration, our immigration system is broken and needs a complete overhaul. we need it to establish a path to legalization for those currently in the country and address other problems but maybe we can use this to address the broad benefits to the country that would accrue by improving the immigration system. regardless of whether we can get the more ambitious legislation, the bill before us today fixes a real problem that
harms our nation's competitiveness. that's why it has bipartisan support. that's why it's the right thing to do. i think it's terribly important for the area of our economy which is going to produce the most jobs in the future, the most competitive job with the highest profit margins, this that we can then sell to the rest of the world. so mr. speaker, i congratulate the sponsors of this legislation and would hope that we would get unanimous support for it. thank you, mr. speaker. my time is under the control of the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i yield back the balance of our tile. spero: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: we have no additional speakers. i thank chairman smith and i want to recognize the good work and working relationship i have with ms. lofgren of california
and luis gutierrez, i think it does demonstrate that we can work in a bipartisan way to pass legislation that will have an important effect on businesses, jobs, the economy and a lot of families. i urge support of 3012 and yield back the balance of my time. spero: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass 46r789 r. 3012 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and raise a point of order that a quorum is not present. spero: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i move hat house suspend the rules.
spero: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: qualifying members of the reserve components of the armed forces and members of the national guard who, after seventh, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2192. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: before us today is an important bill sponsored
by my colleague, mr. cohen, an mr. forbes of virginia. on september 11, 2001, anniversaries, we pause to honor the vims who perished that 2r57b8gic day and we are reminded of the bravery of military personnel and thank mill fair almost i -- families for their sacrifice. the last 10 years have been hard of -- on our members of the military and national guard. about one million guardsmen have been deployed over the last 10 years, and we are grateful. the federal government has the responsibility to ease their return to civilian life from war. many return home with physical handicaps, for many others, psychological challenges face them and their families. some have suffered financial hardships and frequently bankruptcy is unfortunately the
last resort. in a chapter 7 bankruptcy a debtor surrenders virtually all their assets and receives a discharge at the end of the short case. in contrast in a chapter 13 case, a debtor retain theirs assets but must commit their disposable income to repayment of their creditors before receiving a discharge if their debts. in 2005, congress enacted the bankruptcy abuse protection and consumer protection act, often referred to as bapcpa. bapcpa to -- through this law, congress inserted into the code a way to determine if a debtor has disposable income to be used to pay their debts. it's commonly referred to as the means test. if a debtor is able to pay some portion of their debts, then their filing of a chapter 7 bankruptcy is presumed to be an abuse of the system.
the debtor remains eligible for relief under other bankruptcy chapters, including chapter 13, where they can restructure how they pay their debts. in 2008, congress recognized that military reservists and national guardsmen suffer unique financial problems and enacted the military debt relief act, signed into law in 2008. that allows service and national guardsmen to bypass the means test. when they return from the front lines of war, they have endured enough. they do not need to also suffer a presumption of bankruptcy abuse if they are in need of a quick, fresh start in bankruptcy that act expires in december of this year. h.r. 2192, which mr. cohen and mr. forbes introduced, extends the sunset date of the act that was passed in 2008. america is still a nation at war and we continue to call on our guardsmen and reservists to
perform heroic tasks. we should not make life more difficult by allowing means test exemptions to lapse. the bill extends the sunset date by four years, at which time, congress will have the opportunity to re-examine whether this means test carveout has served its purpose and whether it is needed any longer. i want to thank again mr. cohen and mr. forbes for introducing this legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the bill. at this time, i reserve the balance of my time. spero: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. cohen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. 24 bipartisan legislation i introduced in june of this year with mr. forbes, mr. rohrabacher and others, ensures that members of the national guard and service -- armed forces will be able to obtain
bankruptcy relief without fill ought the substantial paperwork required by the means test. h.r. 2192 extends the existing means test exception which will expire in a few weeks if congress fails to act, and act we should for our service and national guards people who have risked their life for our safety. filing chapter seven bankruptcy is considered an abuse of the bankruptcy law. this will apply to those who serve on active duty for 90 tais and remains in effect for 540 days after they leave the military. the debt relief extension act would extend the exception until december, 2015.
this modest but important exception allows qualifying members of the dward and reserves to obtain bankruptcy relief without fulfilling the means test paperwork requirements. . more than many serving multle tours of duty, they made up 43% of u.s. forces serving in iraq and afghanistan and represent more than 20% of those killed in action and 20% of those wounded in action. many of these citizen warriors have been asked to disrupt their lives in active war zones. like other veterans, they often have difficulty adjusting to civilian life. it's estimated approximately 40% of all guard members will experience some sort of financial hardship and the 26% of guard members have money problems replated to their deployment in the war zones. h.r. 2192 is a way for us to recognize the sacrifice of national guard and reserve
members who have suffered financial hardship since september 11. the service members civil relief act and other laws to benefit military veterans will help them. i thank representative forbes, rohrabacher, two members of the republican party who worked with me on this and co-sponsored it and schakowsky and nadler of my party for coast sponsoring 2192. i thank you the judiciary chairman smith and ranking member coniers on courts, administrative law chairman coble for their assistance in moving this bill. this bill does indeed help reservists and national guardsmen in a special way. it shows us the previous bill that mr. chaffetz sponsored shows that we in the judiciary committee can work in a bipartisan manner and that congress can work and we should be at least in double digits. i urge my colleagues to support
h.r. 2192, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers at this time. i would encourage my colleagues to vote for it. it's a good day when we come to the floor of the house and support our guardsmen and those serving in the military. i appreciate the good bipartisan support and work that mr. cohen and mr. forbes and others. with that i will reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields the balance of his time. mr. chaffetz: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house pass h.r. -- house spulls and pass h.r. 2192. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. cohen: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present -- i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: do you ask for the yeas and nays? mr. cohen: that too.
the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this 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 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1801 as reported by the committee of homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call the bill as amended? >> yes, mr. speaker, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of
the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 182, h.r. 1801, a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to provide for expedited security screenings for members of the armed forces . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. craff he can, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: mr. speaker, i ask all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cravaack: mr. speaker, the bill under consideration today, h.r. 1801, the risk-based security screening for members of the armed forces act, is a bipartisan effort which directs t.s.a. to establish an expedited screening process for members of the armed forces and their families and are traveling throughout our nation's airports. currently military service
members must reform their belt buckles and other things before going through checkpoint. it makes absolutely no sense to require an american service member to take off their jackets and medals for t.s.a. screening before boarding their flight home. unless intelligence identifies specific threat, we should honor our service members, willingness to sacrifice themselves for our country by treating them as patriots, not operating under the assumption that everyone intends to harm our country's transportation system. importantly, this commonsense bill will streamline the screening process for our service members and lead to decreased checkpoint wait times for other american travelers. moreover, this legislation will complement the t.s.a. administrator's move to a risk-based checkpoint screening system for passengers and i am
pleased to report that after h.r. 1801 was passed unanimously with bipartisan support in committee, t.s.a. has now begun testing a military i.d. reading pilot program for u.s. armed service members at monterrey peninsula airport in korea. while this bill will not let a member of the armed forces bypass security, it will require t.s.a. to develop an expedited screening process disigned to reduce our service member checkpoint waiting times . to be clear, this program does not impact the t.s.a.'s existing layered aviation security approach that includes federal air marshals, the last line of defense, secure flight vetting, a.i.t. machines, t.s.a. intelligent analysts, explosive trace detections, k-9
teams, boarding systems. it's part of the highly integrated intelligence system that allows further concentration of limited resources on potentially higher risk passengers. in close, i'd like to thank transportation security committee chairman mike rogers and homeland security committee chairman peter king for moving this legislation and all of my colleagues in committee, particularly ranking member bennie thompson and subcommittee ranking member sheila jackson lee for their support. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1801 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, i'd like to acknowledge the work of chairman king and ranking member thompson. as a member of the committee on homeland security, i'm pleased that for the first time in this 112th congress the house is
considering important transportation security legislation. h.r. 1801, the risk-based security screening for members of the armed forces act requires that transportation security administration to develop a plan for providing expedited screening for our military personnel at airport security checkpoints. since 2001, there have been more than two million troops that have been deployed to iraq and afghanistan. last congress an earlier version of this legislation was accepted as an amendment on a bipartisan basis as my colleague mentioned earlier. during consideration of the transportation security administration authorization act, which passed this house by 397 votes in the ye -- ayes, and 25 in the nay, but it was not acted upon by the senate unfortunately. h.r. 1801 properly recognizes
the preciousness of time to our patriotic men and women serving in our armed services without compromising aviation security. this legislation will ensure that our troops and their families, including 236,963 defense personnel in my own home state in california, are given the opportunity to board an aircraft in a security approved expedited manner. our troops help keep our country safe. the least we can do is devise methods that help speed up the screening process for our troops that are in uniform and are traveling on airplanes while on official duty. as our military presence in iraq winds down, it is important that we remain cognizant of the burdens that deployments bear and their travel on service members and their families in times of war and peace. in addition to travel services, i support and urge this
congress, the administration and the department of homeland security to strengthen all military services and programs for our troops, including increasing veteran recruitment efforts. some of the additional military support that this congress should consider would be, one, providing tax credits for hiring veterans looking for work, two, strengthening much-needed training programs for separating service members, three, encouraging businesses and government contractors to hire the brave men and women who have been deployed and have now returned with developed valuable skills and professionalism while in the armed forces. four, ensuring that the service members leave the military career ready. h.r. 1801 is one of many opportunities for the american public and this congress to demonstrate their support to those who are serving bravely. further, it is important to note that consideration of h.r. 1801 marks the first time in this congress that the house is
considering a bill reported by the committee on homeland security. i and other members of this committee look forward to this legislation not being our last. a number of -- a number of commonsense homeland security bills are on the floor of the house of representatives' calendar and warrant timely consideration. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 1801. as we come off a holiday weekend, the most busy travel time in this country, many americans have gone through the screening at our numerous airports. the t.s.s. works hard screening everybody -- the t.s.a. works hard screening everybody making everybody safe. members of our military, whom we know who have served and put their life on the line for this
country, should be among those who first in a program where where he trust our travelers. we must continue to look for efficiencies to speed air travel. we must continue to look for ways to come with less invasive ways to screen passengers. we must look for ways to make traveling a more pleasant experience and a more profitable experience for the business men and women who travel. i urge support of this bill where we start where where he should start, with members of our armed services, but there are other places we need to look to -- trusted traveler program, flight crews receiving expedited screening, the t.s.a. must continue to work to improve this process to make it safer and more efficient and this bill gives the t.s.a. the encouragement that they need and is a great step along the way to more efficient and private and better screening for our sarpte security. and with that i'll yield back.
-- for our airport security. and with that i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. if the gentleman from minnesota is prepared to close i am prepared to close. mr. cravaack: i am prepared to close after the gentlewoman has closed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, h.r. 1801 is needed, it's common sense and it's a piece of legislation with a history of bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and our troops. their time is limited and it certainly should shunte be wasted in long lines at the airport. airport -- shouldn't be wasted in long lines at the airport. airports have checkpoints that expedite the security screening process and our serviceperson ell have earned this privilege -- service personnel have earned this privilege as well. we need to put on homeland security bills and bills aimed at easing our veterans from
military service to civilian careers. it's late november in the first session of this 112th congress and it's coming to an end and the public is hurting and congress must act. with that, mr. speaker, on h.r. 1801, i urge my colleagues to unanimously support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank my colleague from california for her support on this very important bill and our trust we place on our military personnel. mr. speaker, i urge support of h.r. 1801 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1801 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . those opposed, no those in
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2465. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call the bill up as amended? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2465, a bill to amend the federal employees compensation act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five minutes to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 2465. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walberg: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h r. 2465.
the federal workers compensation modernization and improvement act. the legislation was approved unanimously by the house education and work force committee, a testament to its common sense, bipartisan policies. i urge my colleagues to support it. for more than 90 years a workers compensation program has provided assistance to federal employees who become injured or ill through a work-realed activity. the program reflects our commitment to the men and women who serve our country in the federal government. established by the federal employees compensation act, the program is administered by the department of labor and in recren years, it has grown significantly in size and in cost. an estimated $3 -- an estimated three million employees are covered by the program. during fiscal year 2010, beneficiaries receive nearly $3 billion in workers' compensation.
unfortunately, this federal program has not been significantly reformed or updated in almost 40 years. and as is too often the case with government programs left unchecked for decades, waste, and -- waste and inefficiencies have crept into the system, leading to poor use of taxpayer resources and diminished support for the individuals the program is intended to serve. through the oversight efforts of the education an work force committee, we have learned about a number of challenges confronting the program. for example, workers in rural areas like my own may have limited access to medical care. additionally, mr. speaker, some compensation levels remain set to formulas that made sense in the days of the second world war but are inappropriate today. clearly reform is long overdue. federal employees should have access to a program that reflects the realities of today's economy and takes into account the best practices of medical care.
taxpayers deserve a program that operates efficiency -- efficiently and effectively. that's why i along with the other leaders on the education and work force committee introduced the federal work force compensation modernization and improvement act. an initial step in our effort to strengthen the program an bring it into the 21st century. the bill before us today advance this is goal in three important ways. first, mr. speaker, h r. 2465 enhances the efficiency of the federal workers compensation program. the legislation allows physician assistants and advanced practice nurses, highly trained individuals in medical profession, to certify a worker's disability and ensure these professionals are reimbursed for their services. the bill also streamlines the claims process for workers who sustain a traumatic injury in an area of armed conflict. these individual cans work in
hostile an even deadly environments and the not have to wait months for benefits they are entitled to and the taxpayer wishes to afford them. secondly, the legislation, mr. speaker, improves the integrity of the workers compensation program. the labor department would be allowed to cross check an employee's earnings with information held at the social security administration, helping to provide workers the benefits they deserve, no more, and no less. the department would also be empowered to collect administrative costs and other expenses from agencies employing the workers, promoting greater accountability within the program for all federal agencies. finally, mr. speaker, the legislation modernizes benefits to better meet the needs of today's workers, providing the level of support employees need and guaranteing that injuries or illnesses resulting from an
act of terrorism are treated like other war risk hazards. the federal workers compensation modernization and improvement act represents common sense reform for federal -- reform federal workers and taxpayers deserve. i encourage my colleagues to support the legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2465, the federal workers compensation modernization and improvement act. this legislation is a product of bipartisan cooperation and consensus and i thank the chairman of the work force protection committee for being here and being the leader on
this today. this legislation updates and improves the federal employees' compensation act or feca, which provides legislation to ensure they can continue to support their families and pay their bills if they're injured on the job. a core principle embedded in the law is that workers should be no better off or no worse off for having suffered a work-related injury. the reforms in this bill are an initial step toward making feca fairer and more efficient for taxpayers and federal employees who depend on the program. h.r. 2465 updates benefits for funeral expenses and facial disfigurements beth of which have not been updated since 1949. it ensures that acts of terror
are covered to include advance practice nurses and physical assistance. it also expands the continuation of pay period from 45 days to 135 days for those who are injured overseas in a zone of armed conflict. to make it easier to file for benefits. this legislation will improve program integrity by allowing the department of labor to match its records against social security earnings information, ensuring that beneficiaries are not receiving prohibited salary for outside income at the same time they're receiving benefits. consistent with the government accountability recommendation, the bill allows the government to recover a portion of payments secured from third parties. mr. speaker, these common sense, bipartisan changes will make it more efficient and according to the congressional budget office will produce
savings for taxpayers and the postal service. the committee is aware of department of labor proposals to slash benefits for workers while -- with dependents, reduce benefits for permanently disabled workers when they reach retime age and shrink survivor benefits. while the department contends their proposal addresses inequities, they have not presented evidence that these changes will not create unintended consequences. for that reason, i was pleased to chair chairman klein, subcommittee chairman walberg and ranking member milner sponsoring a july 8 request to the g.a.o. asking that it assess the impacts of the labor department's proposed changes. the g.a.o. report will be vital. it will be so important as we look for ways to further improve the bill without undermining its core values. before we consider what we're going to be doing, we have to
consider who is impacted by changes when we modify this law. and we do -- and when we do, we have to keep in mind that this law is these work -- that this is the workers' exclusive remedy. they cannot sue the government for their losses. leslie black was a correctional officer at the federal creckal institute in south carolina. when she was attacked by an inmate on may 7, no, may 2, 2007, she wrote this. i quote her. she wrote, the inmate who attacked me had embedded two razors into a plastic spoon by melting the spoon around the razor, creating a lethal weapon. with this weapon he slashed my throat and right arm, cause seg veer bleeding, blood loss and lacerations. since this attack, my family
and i have survived on a reduced income of my workers' compensation benefits and my husband's income, including his wages as a member of the army national guard. we have three children at home and my workers' compensation benefits have been the difference between financial survival and financial ruin. we huardly live in the lap of luxury. that's the end of her quote. she hopes to return to work at the prison in a suitable position in the near future, mr. speaker. she asks, why would anyone want to cut benefits for someone who was hurt trying to keep the community safe? given the public service provided by leslie and other federal workers, i was disappointed to see that the senate committee on home and security -- on homeland and security government affairs has reported out postal reform legislation that adopted many of the department of labor's
proposals to cut feca and then went a step further and cut them even more deeply without having first undertaken an analysis of those impacts. the senate committee even imposed some of these cuts retroactively, frankly, taking a meat ax to the program without first doing your homework is irresponsible. it is my hope that the legislation before us today, coupled with a bipartisan commitment to study the matter with care, conserve -- can serve as an x. for the correct path forward, improving feca. these are not just numbers, they are not just percentages we are dealing with. these changes could mean unjust impoverishment for a federal firefighter injured while battling a forest fire or the widow of a fire worker. representative giffords and her staff were covered under the
law follow handgun the assault that killed six earlier this year. as we move forward, it is important that any further reforms are fair to both taxpayers and injured workers. while i appreciate the desire of some colleagues to move quickly to adress their concerns about these benefits, it is prudent to allow a few months for the g.a.o. to complete its work before redesiping the benefit structure. mr. speaker, i'm also troubled to learn that the house committee on government and -- on oversight and government reform decided to include changes in the postal reform bill to create a separate postal workers compensation outside of feca. all federal workers should be covered under the same workers compensation system, regardless of which agency employees them. so pursuant to house rules, workers compensation programs,