tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 21, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
, for some of us, that is that time in the summer when republicans were insisting that as part of the deficit or rather the debt ceiling negotiations that we return to raising the debt ceiling every few months. in fact, we would return to live by the end of the year. you want to talk about uncertainty created for the economy. you remember what this was like in august. this concerned about uncertainty created seems hollow. >> is there any comment from the white house about eight american soldiers charged in afghanistan? >> i do not have anything for you on that, but i can take the question and get back to you. >> there were reports of five
iranian engineers captured in syria working on a power plant. with the statement that he shared earlier today, you said you are condemning items of the syrian regime and calling for them to band against the regime. have you been speaking to your allies in the region to take stronger action against syria? especially with the iranians now in the country, it seems like things are wrapping up there. -- ramping up there. >> i would say with regard to syria, we have ratcheted up pressure on syria. you have seen the united states working with our partners, working with our allies, participating in an effort that has increased international isolation of syria. the steps we have taken have been pa pa all in one direction,
if you will, which is to put pressure on syria, to make sure has lost control of his regime, to call on him to cease the violence and to begin a democratic transition in that country. we will continue to take the steps to pressure the regime to stop the crackdown. as we have seen by the reporting and by the international condemnation of what is happening in that country, the world is watching. and increasingly, assad's legitimacy has been lost around the world. and that process will continue. >> are you aware of the reports about the iranian engineers? >> i have seen the report, but i do not have anything specific
for you on that. >> have there been discussions with people in the region? >> again, i do not have any response on that. >> yesterday, you graciously answered my question about the president saying that you wanted to note the christmas imitation in advance. >> i was going to let that slide. >> any updates? >> no updates on scheduling. >> after the statement from the president came out, there has been a lot talked about this week with the president telling cbs that if you stack up his accomplishments in the first couple of years, it is the fourth best in history. he said only lincoln and a few others compare. >> the fact of the matter is, he was making a point about the volume and substance of the
legislative accomplishments, and a foreign policy accomplishments in his first three years in power. he was not making the comment that only historians will make about the success or -- you know, this is not a comparison of success to other presidencies, except in the significance and substance and size of the legislative accomplishments, whether it is health care reform, which is an effort that took 100 years to accomplish, or the recovery act, which was an enormous response to an historic crisis. or the bailout of the automobile industry against great political opposition, and on the foreign- policy front, continuing to take the fight successfully to al qaeda, embodied most notably in the successful mission to remove
osama bin laden from the battlefield. the successful efforts that will lead to bring the international community behind the effort of the libyan opposition to remove muammar gaddafi from power. i could go on. and believe me, i will. as time permits. but it was within the context of the substance and volume with what has happened in these enormous challenges in nearly three years. >> the president might make some recess appointments. there are people in both parties wondering if you might reserve that right. is there a possibility that richard cordray may be named?
what is your sense about that possibility? >> i do not have any announcements to make or speculation to engage in on that front. we're not relinquishing any rights here. that is certainly the case. i would note that it is unfortunate that although we had some significant nominations succeed, many, many others and necessarily have been blocked. -- unnecessarily have been blocked. the effect of that, whether it is ambassadorial nominations or judicial nominations, is very damaging. it is a constant problem and a growing problem where random centers put holds on nominations that are absolutely -- random senators put holds on nominations that are absolutely not controversial. i think that should stop. i think this president will continue to not make highly qualified people for important
positions around our government and in our foreign service, and on to the bench. you mentioned richard cordray. it is a perfect example of an abomination in terms of behavior. he is widely respected and has broad bipartisan support across the country. he is exactly the right person for the job to be the consumer watchdog. the overseer of an agency to ensure that the average americans do not get taken advantage of by financial institutions, that they have an advocate for them here in washington. republicans blocked that because they want to water down wall street reforms, reforms that were put in place to help prevent the kind of financial crisis that almost tipped the global economy into a depression. it seems like a bad idea.
david, go ahead. >> yesterday compared the president -- yesterday, the president said he needed the speaker to do something. my impression is that he needed something more than a -- expected something more than a phone call. is the president going to do nothing to help the speaker get out of the corner he is in? >> the speaker is very capable of helping himself by calling a vote on the senate compromise, the compromise that received the support of 80% of republican senators and even the great majority of democratic senators. there is a bipartisan bill available to him as a lifesaver, if you will. >> will the president do anything for him to help? >> the important thing here is not who is up and who's down politically. as i talked about yesterday, we
are beginning to see some positive signs in the economy. we are a long way from a full economic recovery, but the last thing we need to do is fail to pass a payroll tax cut extension that would have an impact on the kind of economic growth that we have been seeing and need to continue tuesday. it is just wrong on every level to prevent this from passing. >> there have been indications coming out of china that maybe there is some power sharing with north korea. have you had any communications through intermediaries or the north korean government itself? >> all i can say is that we are monitoring the situation closely. kim jong-il had designated kim jong un-as his official successor and we have no indication that has changed. we hope for peace, prosperity, and a better future for the
north korean people, including through north reacting on its actions of the nuclear station. north korea is in a time of morning. we're monitoring events closely. we hope the new leadership will support peace and prosperity and a better future for its people and that it will abide by its commitments on denuclearization. >> no indications from the government's on an intermediary? >> not that i'm aware of. >> on tuesday, the administration called on the american people to weigh in, to lend their voices. realistically speaking, do you think that is going to help? >> i do think it will begin as as i have said now for a while, -- because as i have said now for a while, we are optimistic,
or at least hopeful, that congress will act on some of these common sense, mainstream measures to help grow the economy, help the american people, and improve our economic and employment situation, not because we are for them. that is probably-in the eyes of the partisan house of representatives -- that is probably a negative thing in the eyes of the partisan house of representatives, but because the constituents are demanding it. i do not have a ton of data here, but i suspect that the voices we are hearing from my people who are responding to vp 40" there "$0"
are people all of the country for home $40 is a big deal. in north carolina, it might buy gas for a week or my groceries for a week. in texas, that is almost one week of groceries for me. or how much it costs to fill my gas tank for one and a half weeks or medical copays at the specialists office. which one am i going to go without? this is going to hurt. please do not let this happen. i think of thousands of responses that we have had so far are representative of the hundreds of thousands and millions responses -- of responses that you would get if the house of representatives were to survey their own
constituents. for most people, $1,000 out of their paycheck next year is an enormous hit. and in this economy, we cannot let that happen. >> a senior military commander suggested that troops might need to invest beyond 2014. can you respond to that? >> i appreciate the question. thank you. as established in lisbon at nato, and has made clear through the president's afghanistan policy, one, we are in the process of drawing down the surge, and by the end of 2014 we will have turned over full security lead to afghan forces. we have made clear all along, much as in iraq when we turned
over full security lead to the iraqi forces, that it would be part of a process that may include troops in support. but make no mistake, and i have an announcement to make, which is that we have met the commitment to reduce by the end of the year our forces by 10,000. in afghanistan. as we begin to reduce the surjit forces, as the president committed to do. and we will continue that process. and when the surge forces are out next year, and by the end of 2014, there will be a continued reduction of u.s. forces. we will turn up more and more over to afghan security leads. that has been clearly spelled out from lisbon on. and it is entirely consistent with what general allen said.
>> [unintelligible] >> note, no, i said it was entirely consistent with what general allen said. in the process of turning over security to the afghans, that as a result of a gradual reduction of forces and a building up of afghan security forces. we have said from the beginning that there could be u.s. forces in afghanistan beyond the end of 2014 in a support role, just as they were after august, 2010 in a support role in iraq. from that point forward in iraq, we have drawn down to zero in accordance with our agreement with the iraqi government. that is entirely consistent. >> back to the payroll tax cut for a second, a follow-up question. put yourself in the speakers shoes. are you suggesting that he
cobbled together may be a house majority of willing democrats and what ever republicans he might get to go along, even if it goes against the majority of his own caucus in the house? >> and my suggesting that for the sake of 160 million people -- am i suggesting that for the sake of 160 million people he should allow his house republicans to vote their conscience, which would result because of overwhelming democratic support and passage of the senate bill, yes. >> that is one way he could do it. >> absolutely. and that is why they did not ,ote on it the other day because it would have passed. that is the shame of all of this. there are -- i am confident there are more than enough house republicans that want to go along with this and want to ensure that american taxes do not go up on january 1, and certainly do not want to explain to their constituents why it will go up.
if it came to the floor of the house, it would have near unanimous support from democratic members, and i'm confident that the 30 or so republicans it require for passage, they would vote yes. and then we can move on to the next thing that we can agree on, which is to get the payroll tax cut and insurance -- unemployment insurance extended for the full year. >> [unintelligible] >> the president has an enormous amount of responsibilities. every president does. he cannot be responsible for the internal politics of the other party in one house of congress. he is simply focused on doing what is best for the american people, and working with republicans as well as democrats to achieve what is best for the american people. and that is what the bipartisan compromise reached in the senate represents. 90% of the u.s. senate on a
substantive issue, an important issue like this, is quite an accomplishment. senators reid and bookal deserve a lot of credit for what they did. -- and mcconnell deserve a lot of credit for what they did. it does not happen that often when we have this kind of bipartisan consensus on a portion -- an important issue. we should act on it. >> did the president said any time -- did he and john boehner said any time to talk again -- set a time to talk again? >> there is nothing more than i can relate to you from the conversation. the president was clear about what he said to the speaker.
there was an available solution. the house should pass -- should pass the two-month extension and go from there. the president has repeatedly supported a one-year extension. after all, he started this conversation and has been pushing for an extension since september. democrats have been clearly willing to compromise, to accept that they could not get republican support to do what they believe and what we believe is the right thing to do, to ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more so that 160 million americans could get a tax cut. but republicans opposed that almost unanimously. senate democrats with the full support of republicans were able to work out a compromise that they felt was acceptable and that made sense as a policy
matter. it did not violate the president's principles in terms of damaging the economy or harming the people that you are trying to help with the payroll tax extension, or with unemployment insurance. >> why did he decide to call boehner? yesterday you laughed it off. >> i did not laugh it off. i said there was available action here that the house should pass the bill. the president called speaker boehner to urge him to do the right thing here, which is to bring up the senate bill and the house, which is something he can still do, contrary to some tweets i have seen out there. they absolutely can. take up the senate bill and pass it. it will be signed by this president gladly. margaret, then in the back, then i will jump around, laura. you know. >> [unintelligible]
[laughter] i feel like we're all caught in the middle of, basically, -- are you just sort of making house republicans winds a little more before you work it out? >> the president just got off the phone within the last hour with the speaker of the house, urging him to do the right thing to take up the senate bill. there is a clear avenue here. their shining a light on the path out of this cul-de-sac that they have given themselves into, and it is to vote on a bill -- we are not asking them to vote on a bill that only democrats supported. 80% or so of republicans supported it. it does not seem like that much
of and ask. >> [unintelligible] and in the and if what you want is it just a resolution, [unintelligible] a two-month extension with some language -- it does not seem that out of reach. >> i do not know what that means, "requires a year-long deal on whose terms?" this is not a payroll tax cut. this is not about getting fixes on ideological issues. they took the willingness that democrats demonstrated and that this president demonstrated to accept this -- to accept this totally extraneous provisions on keystone and they decided that was not enough.
they wanted a bunch of other things that moved them away from bipartisanship, move them away from compromise. the president is committed to a full-year extension. he has demonstrated his willingness to agreed to -- to agree to a different one than the democrats put forward and that the republicans put forward. but they have to make sense. they should pass the two months and then we can get negotiating on the year-long. >> the president made a couple of phone calls yesterday. i guess, i'm just wondering, has the president or vice president biden spoken with the president of iraq? how does president obama feel about the arrests and the charges against the vice-
president? what are you considering doing about it? >> first, i think we read out some of the calls that the vice president made separately. this kind of political turmoil has been occurring in iraq periodically. as they have taken steps forward, and occasionally steps backward, but generally made progress toward democracy and away from the use of violence in pursuit of political and spirit that has been progress, but it has often been part one -- of ends.ical an that is part one, but still progress. the progress is still substantial. what is utterly nonsensical is
to suggest that somehow we should have left troops in there and i would have had any impact on the political disputes. maybe folks were not paying attention, but political disputes were happening when there were 40,000 troops, 80,000 troops, 150,000 troops. the key metric here is that the disputes have been resolved through negotiation, not through violence. elections were held. a government was established. these are all signs of important progress, all while violence declined significantly. we'll continue to have a robust and a significant relationship with iraq. we will have discussions with iraqi leaders. and we will continue to weigh in and encourage iraqi leaders to make smart decisions as they continue to move forward with the development of their democracy. i want to be clear on the question that khristine had
about afghanistan. in 2014, the president will make its decisions on the size and shape of our 2012 presence after the reduction of the surjit forces at the appropriate time with our afghan and nato partners. any 2014 president will be at the imitation of the afghan government -- any 2014 presence will be at the invitation of the afghan government. the framework that i discussed at the top was laid out in lisbon. >> do you have any reaction to the prime minister's suggestion today that he wants to shed members of the coalition that he might not get it along with it? >> we did a read of the vice
president calls to that statement. we have worked with a number of the members on the president's team in iraq. it will continue to be that iraqi leaders pursue a representative government so that everyone's interests are properly represented. beyond that, i would refer to the statement that we put out. >> [unintelligible] but the guard that he had jailed? >> i do not have anything more on that for you today. yes, alexis. and then john. >> you were reading the
comments of people talking about what they can do for $40. the president talking marketing a year extension, i want to be clear. he is talking about an extension where people would get $60. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. that was part of our argument. >> if he gets the two-month insurance, he will not then say , ok, let's talk about extending this. >> i will not predict. he may say that is a good thing to do, but he is absolutely willing to sign an appropriately paid for one-year extension of the payroll tax cuts at the current levels. you are right, he initially supported an expansion of that. and as another data point in my presentation, the ways in which the republicans and democrats
have compromised in this negotiation, under way that compromise has led -- and the way that compromise has led to a vote of 80% republican in the senate, understand that in a divided government you do not get everything you want. he is very willing to sign into law this two-month extension that was passed by the senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. and he is very eager to work with congress to continue the progress senators. and mcconnell made for a full year -- senator mcconnell and reid made for a full year. what he does not want is that nothing is passed by the house and taxes go up. >> i have a question about the present sense of history and his
plays into it. it is my and steny that somebody does an analysis for them. and is -- is that somebody -- my understanding is that somebody does an analysis for them. can you tell me where that came from? >> the president is a well-read individual, and was prior to coming to office and reads voraciously in office. i think that is an assessment that others may have made on the outside through the sheer volume of what has been accomplished by this president and by congress in the last three years. and part of the size of the record. and again, voters will judge it, and historians will judge it in terms of where it fits in american history, its relative success or greatness. that is not what he was talking about.
he was talking about coming into office, working with congress, facing enormous challenges for this country. an economy in free fall, the real threat of a global depression, and two wars, and enormous challenges elsewhere in foreign affairs. andy, with congress, took action to deal with -- and he, with congress, took action to deal with these things. they did big things -- wall street reform, successfully saving the american automobile industry, the recovery act, health care reform. and as i mentioned, a number of foreign policy successes. successfully and responsibly and in the war in iraq, beginning the drawdown in afghanistan, taking the fight aggressively to al qaeda kamari positioning ourselves, rearranging ourselves to reassert ourselves
as a player in power. because of the neglect prior that the united states has had in asia. these are all big things. successors and historians will judge the success of things he has done. and voters will obviously have an opportunity to do that in less than a year. but there is no arguing about the volume and a substantial nature of what has been done. >> you just said that the speaker's office has put out a read of the call and they are saying that speaker boehner appears to be dug in, just as the president was on the two- month period -- the two months. where are we today? >> today, congressman ben
hollon and congressman -- van hollen and congressman hoyer attempted to bring it up and they were gaveled down. that is what they understand. he knows, and the president made very clear to him that the avenue available to him as speaker of the house to avoid raising taxes on 160 million americans is to pass the measure that won overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. this sudden insistence on the uncertainty created by a two- month extension -- you guys know. you have been covering this. it just does not ring true. it is the same leadership that thought it would be a good idea for the global and the american
economy to have periodic fight and stalemates over defaulting on on the credit of the united states government. talk about uncertainty. the uncertainty that we have to eliminate is the uncertainty that americans have right now on whether taxes will go up. there is a bipartisan measure to make sure that does not happen. just take it. follow the advice of numerous republican senators. follow the advice of the " wall street editorial page, words i never thought i would speak. [laughter] follow the advice of senators mccain and grassley and corcoran and others. >> the speaker has said he has
followed europe buys and has urged the leader of the senate ought to appoint conferees. isn't this a stalemate? >> there was a bipartisan measure out of the senate. it was a product of negotiation that the speaker of the house helped to initiate and urged to happen. it was a product that the speaker of the house endorsed to his own colleagues on a conference call, as has been widely reported. it should just get done. what is absolutely the wrong way to look at this and would be a disservice to readers and say, neitherd be to send
side will won't compromise. democrats will move and republicans will not move. that is not what happened here in the senate. democratic leaders, republican leaders got together and work out a compromise that won the support of republicans and democrats. that is the kind of stuff that people are dying to see in washington. it worked. the president supports it. for while, or 424 hours there, it seemed like -- or for 24 hours there, it seemed like republicans in the house supported it until they were told not to. but they're not speaking for the overwhelming majority of the american people, republicans in the country, or certainly for their colleagues in the senate, all of whom want them to pass this bipartisan compromise to ensure that americans do not have their taxes go up.
and to refocus our efforts on getting a full-year extension. that is the way out here. there is a bipartisan compromise available. the negotiation has happened. he sat down with senator mcconnell and with senator reid and urged that process to begin. they worked hard on a year-long, and when they felt like they could not do it by the end of the year, they recommended a two-month compromise. republicans and democrats overwhelmingly agreed they should take it up and pass it. >> can you tell us how long the conversation lasted with the speaker? >> i do not have an exact time for you, but it seemed about 10 minutes. >> obviously, more was said and what you said if it was an minutes long. >> i am not going to give you a
transcript, if that is what you mean. the president was very clear in stating what i told you he said. i do not think he can be any clearer. >> those guys out potentially reiterated their public positions. my question is whether there's any hope for advancing this beyond the public statements of each side. >> again, i have given you the readout. it is an absolutely fair representation of what the president said. i leave it to the speaker to characterize what he said what i describe to you is exactly what the president said. it is exactly his position, publicly and privately.
the house should take up the senate compromise. >> you talk about how they committed to -- the president is committed to a year-long deal. what makes it seem so easy to get a year-long deal when both parties have failed to do so until now? >> senators. and mcconnell made process. -- made progress. that process -- senator reid and senator mcconnell made progress. that process needs to continue. there are ways to pay for this that the president can accept, democrats can accept, and we see no reason why republicans would not accept. the issues that they put forward in whatever that thing is that they voted on yesterday so they could avoid actually voting on the bill were things that had
nothing to do with the payroll tax cuts. nothing at all. >> if you think you're going to be able to get past all those things when -- that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cuts in january? >> i think the voices of people across the country will be heard. but let's be clear, great progress was made in the senate. there are ways to do this for a year that everybody can agree on. certainly, at least the senate republicans and senate democrats, as well as house democrats. speaking of isolation, there is one isolated group here that does not want to join the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans in support of doing one thing on behalf of the american people. increasingly, i think that isolation is becoming clear.
and i expect that house republicans will be hearing from their constituents and maybe from other folks whose opinion they respect. and that will have an affect. the politics of this are really so far less important than the substance here. jessica pointed out early on in the briefing that there is an absolute economic impact to fail to act here. there's a macro amped -- macro economic impact from a reduction of growth by 0.5%. that would have an effect on employment. it would have a terrible effect on those who would no longer receive unemployment insurance as they're trying to make payments on their houses and look for a job. and the withdrawal of all of those resources from the economy would be negative.
the effect on individuals losing $40 per paycheck is real. and harmful at this time when we are still at a fragile stage of our economic recovery, where things are getting better, but are far from good enough. the last thing congress should do is in an act of total disregard of bipartisan consensus, a total disregard for the effect it would have on 160 million people, refused to vote on this compromise. >> it seems that the payroll tax cut is going to expire, weather 10 days from now, or two months, or a year from now. you just talked about the impact it would have if not extended for middle-class families.
how's the president or his economic team given any thought to making this payroll tax cut permanent? >> no. >> why not? >> because it was specifically designed a year ago working with republican leaders, designed to give the economy at that moment the goose that it needed. and again, notwithstanding those that choose to ignore basic economic facts and call themselves economists nonetheless, it has had a very positive impact this year on the economy, both on growth and job creation. and it would continue to have that. at some point, you hope that the recovery is at a stage where you would no longer need that added help. that is why it is a one-your manager. -- one-your manageyear measure.
the state of uncertainty is suspicious, to say the least, but republicans also overwhelmingly supported the temporary bush tax cuts. this is a real-world impact. this is not an esoteric exercise. this is not a political exercise. this is a bill that would either provide americans with an extra $4 per paycheck, or take it away. -- $40 per paycheck, or take it away. and americans who live paycheck per paycheck and americans who may be doing a little bit better than that and are able to save a little bit, they would have to change their budgeting next year if the house walks away from this bipartisan compromise. a% of senate republican support. -- 80% of senate republican support. but for some reason, the house republicans do not.
>> a year from now, you think the taxpayers will be able to handle about $40 missing per paycheck. >> there are a lot of things under the bridge economically between now and the year from now. as you know from reporting on these issues, a lot of other things will have to be decided next year economically that will have an effect on tax rates and a number of issues economically. we're also hoping -- i will not make any prediction about economic growth or anything, except to say that we need to take the measures we can to help the recovery along, to give the momentum that will help with the unemployment rate and get people back to work. where yes, we would not need that kind of measure that we need now, and that americans need now.
>> [inaudible] what is the symbolism, if any, should read into the message that the dog is the president's best friend? [laughter] is there no message, and this is just the first time he has had a chance to go shopping? he cannot go -- get anything done until congress acts, so he might as well go shopping? [laughter] >> and an expensive trip to it. >> i think scott did my work for me. i was here as this otr, as we
call it, was happening. the president was very busy before this excursion. he was on the phone with senator reid and speaker boehner. you know, sometimes it is nice to get out of the house. thanks very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> brought in at today's white house briefing. as you heard, house speaker boehner had a conversation with president obama today about the tax bill. the speaker urged the president to call on senator reid to appoint negotiators to produce a full year bill by the end of the year. the speaker told the president that his conference was elected to change the way washington does business and that we should not waste the next 10 days to but because it is an inconvenient time of year.
he said our differences are not so great that we cannot pass a full-year bill by december 31. the speaker reiterated to the president that republicans remain in washington and are ready to work. let's get this done. >> the stalemate was amplified this morning during a pro forma session of the house. house minority leader steny hoyer was rebuffed in his call for a vote on the bill. we will show you that in a moment. first, house majority leader eric cantor. we spoke to him just a short time ago about the disagreement over the tax cut. this is about seven minutes. >> joining us here on c-span, congressman eric cantor, the house republican leader. thanks for being here. what are the options over the next 10 days? >> we are here in washington today and what we are asking is that the president and harry reid joined us in trying to resolve the remaining differences over the issue of how to extend the payroll tax
holiday. the house republican position is very clear. we want to make sure that the working people of this country have a year guaranteed where their taxes will not go up. that is the position taken by everybody in this town, which then lends some question to white in the world is it that what the senate has produced, 60 days, is acceptable. it is not acceptable for the working people of this country and for families to be able to operate that way. >> is it even feasible to reach an agreement in this limited time frame with the holidays in the middle? >> the only thing that is keeping a deal from being struck is harry reid's insistence that he wants to keep his members on vacation. we are here to go to work. we are here in washington. what we are talking about is only one issue. there is nothing else on the table other than this payroll tax extension as far as were the
difference lies. the difference lies in the timeframe of the extension. we are saying that we are willing to compromise on that. we have always been willing to do so. but somehow, it seems acceptable to the president and harry reid to allow folks to go on vacation while we should be doing our work. my sense is this, we owe it to the american people at the end of what has been a very tough year for them to show that washington can do something and can produce a result, not just kick the can down the road for 60 days. we will be back in this fight. we want to leave it. let's set a new town that we can do things together and we can find common ground to see better days in this country. >> and yet you see the description of congress as dysfunctional, stalemate, standoff, and people look at you and say you cannot get anything done, both democrats and republicans. >> in this situation they hear everyone's saying that we should have payroll tax holiday
extension for a year. even the president's barre own words said it was an excusable for -- a very own words said it was inexcusable for congress not to extend it for a full year. now they're saying they cannot have more than 60 days. that is not true. it would take a couple of hours to just resolve the differences and let the-fourrs american people get on about their lives. they will be left in a lurch if 60 days is the answer, or of the tax holiday is not extended. it just defies reason as to why harry reid thinks it is more important to keep his members on vacation rather than going to work. i would also say that we are sitting here within a mile of the white house. the president is in town. why isn't he asking us to come
there? why isn't he on capitol hill trying to resolve the differences? these differences are not great. we can do this. >> have you been in touch with anyone from the white house or the president directly? >> absolutely. i know the speaker as well as my office and myself have been in discussions with the white house. i think we can get this done. it is not that difficult. if everyone would come off of an insistence that somehow a 60-day take in the canned is a good thing -- kicked in the can is a good thing and provide real relief for the american people, that is what we should do. >> clear up one issue on the conference call on saturday. there were some indication that the speaker was supportive of this two-month agreement and that changed on sunday mornings "meet the press." what happened? >> the speaker and i have been on the same page, that we
believe a year-long tax relief for the american people is where we need to be. that is what the house passed in a bipartisan vote. and frankly, we're all leaders are in this town, and all members say that is what we ought to do. harry reid somehow feels that the only thing we can do is 60 days. what we are saying, and the speaker is saying is that is not acceptable. we are here to do our work and we are asking them to join us. >> walk through the process procedurally of what c-span viewers and others can expect. the house remains in a pro-forma session on friday. what could happen? >> as you know, the house on tuesday rejected the senate suggestion of 60 days and move to go to conference to put the full year back in the body of the senate. now what needs to happen in or for tax relief to be provided to the people in any sort, the senate has to act.
if taxes go up, it will be because the senate did not come back to town and do their work. we are asking if it's that -- if harry reid would appoint conferees and work out the differences. knowing where the negotiations were when they broke off, we are not very far apart at all. it is inexcusable for us to allow any kind of politics to get in the way. what we're talking about is people's hard-earned money and we are talking about people in this country who have been through a very rough year. we care about those people, all of us do. let's do the right thing. >> what are the odds of an agreement? >> i'm so -- i'm hoping that something will dawn on the president to get engaged and say, let's resolve these differences together. we can get it done today. that is how easy this really is. we can get this done today. said a new tone for this town for the beginning of this year
-- set a new tone for this town and for the beginning of this next year that we can get things done. >> congressman, thank you. >> thank you. >> here is the house pro-forma session from this morning where the chair refuse to recognize the house minority leader as he attempted to move toward passage of the senate bill. captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 21, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable michael g. fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend michael wilker, lutheran church of the reformation, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, you give us light in the darkness. we praise you for the galaxies,
stars, planets, and moon that shine in the night. we bless you for lamps and candles that ill lieu min our communities. we thank you for the fires that warm our homes and energize our work. we repent for the ways we pollute the beauty of the night, the ways we extinguish the light of companionship, the ways we fail to share your warmth. enlighten our darkness. be the day spring for those suffering from addiction and illness. be the bright morning star for those who are grieving. be the sun of justice for those living under oppression and in poverty. be the cleansing fire for those who survive violence and warfare. traveling send us with your light to share with friends and strangers. welcoming light our gatherings
with your love. searching for justice and peace , light our way. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. 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: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday -- >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, we would like to ask unanimous consent that we bring up the bill to extend the tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the floor, mr.
speaker. you're walking out. you're walking away just as so many republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers. the unemployed. and very frankly as well from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens. we regret, mr. speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country. and that is the continuation of the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those that risk of losing them, and the continuation of access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for their health. and i am pleased to yield to my friend, mr. van hollen. >> again, that was a pro forma
session. the most of the house was not in the chamber. the gallery ended the audio and video feed from the floor after about four minutes. congressman hoyer and congressman dan holland continued speaking for about 23 minutes. -- congressman van hollen continued speaking for about 23 minutes. after that, they held a briefing with reporters to talk about what happened. this loss of about 15 minutes and we will show you as much as we can before going live to new hampshire to hear from the house speaker in new hampshire, who will give his endorsement of newt gingrich today. >> good morning.
mr. van holland and i just participated on the floor of the house -- van hollen and i just as a patent on the floor of the house for unanimous consent to place some of floor and pass legislation that would give certainty and assurance to seniors, the unemployed, and 160 million americans at risk of losing their task -- tax cut on january 1, the ability to have that certainty and confidence not just this holiday period but in january and february while we take action to try to come to an agreement on the one-year extension that we want. unfortunately, as has happened so often, the acting speaker, of republican presiding officer, walked out. he walked out, would it not
rendered recognition in would not allow mr. vaan hollen and i to meet the unanimous -- unanimous consent request and move forward. the speaker has indicated he is ready to go to conference. the irony is he appointed five conferees all at one point or another who said they were opposed to a one-year extension of the middle-class tax cut and in fact, make comments similar to the speaker, that the middle- class tax cut is a gimmick. the middle-class those not believe that. the working men and women in this country do not believe that. they did not believe it is a gimmick to reject having the wealthiest of americans pay some additional small increment so that this bill could have passed in the senate months of go -- months ago. i regret that the republicans
who say they are here to work -- and we were on the floor to do our work -- and they walked out. i now want to yield two mr. chris van hollen, the ranking member of the budget committee. >> thank you, mr. hoyer. as all of you saw, the presiding officer brought the house of representatives into session and immediately gaveled into a close before we have the opportunity to ask for unanimous consent to take up the bill that was identical to the senate's bipartisan compromise bill to extend the payroll tax cut. the speaker of the house and the republican leadership were awol on the floor today. i did not see any of them. the speaker of the house, as we speak, he could walk down the hall, open the chamber, and we could enter into a unanimous consent agreement to take up the republican compromise bill, the identical house version -- it is
right here. and if we could vote on this today, we would get the same bipartisan result that they received in the senate the other day. and by the end of the day, we could have a bill on the president's desk that would make sure that 160 million americans receive a tax cut, a continuation of the tax cut, beginning january 1, and can make sure millions of americans out there looking for a job and cannot find one have on unemployment insurance, and make sure that no in -- millions of americans can be assured that their doctors will be paid. these are medicare patients. that they can make sure their doctors will be available because they will be receiving payment under the medicare system, full payment. so, it is a real tragedy that the house republican leadership did not show up today on the floor of the house of representatives, because had
they been there, they could have entered into this unanimous consent agreement that mr. hoer mentioned, got in the bill passed and at the end of the day could be on the president's desk. they may be somewhere in the capital but they are not on the floor of the house of representatives, which is where the people's house transacts business. we will be here every day waiting for them to come to the floor of the house to actually take up this legislation so we can get it done. >> republicans in august -- why are you democrats here doing the same thing? >> your premise that the democrats would not be here if there was business to do is wrong. fact of the matter, we were there to ask the house take of a unanimous consent request. they walked out on us.
they were not on the floor. and the acting speaker who was on the floor walkabout. but more importantly than that, they walk out yesterday when we were all here. they walked out on 89 senators, 39 republicans. senator brown, senator mccain, "the wall street journal" have all said -- senator snowe, senator lugar, one of the senior republican members, have all said pass this bill and do what we do all the time, what families do all the time. when you can't get agreement on something you need to get agreement on, but you want to continue in place of the existing situation, you make a short-term agreement and say we will do this for a little while. but let's decide what we will do on a long -- in the long term. that is what the senate did because they cannot reach agreement.
the house republican leadership knows they could not get agreement. so, they walked out yesterday with all of us here ready to do our work without giving us the opportunity to vote on the senate product that has overwhelming bipartisan support. >> situations where there are pro-forma sessions before, and whether there are democrats or bad republicans in charge -- getting up and try to make motions -- i have been here a long time and i had never seen anybody get recognized. did you genuinely think you would get recognized? >> i can't remember a time -- i have been a long time myself -- i can't remember a time when 160 million americans were adversely affected by actions we took yesterday. 160 million americans are uncertain as to whether or not their tax cut will continue on january 1.
where 48 million seniors are going to be lacking confidence that their doctors will be available to them because they are not going to be compensated properly -- as everyone agrees they should. and that 3 million americans are concerned about losing their unemployment insurance and how they can support themselves. i cannot remember a similar situation. very frankly, what has happened is the republicans have taken hostage those 160 million people. they have taken hostage to those 48 million people and hostile to those 3 million people so that it would be done their way or by way. >> did you really think you would be recognized, based on history? >> in my heart of hearts and my experience in the past and my understanding -- and you have heard me read the list of how many times to walk away -- the answer to the question is, i was not surprised that they walked away from resolving this issue on behalf of the american
people. >> this is the end of the year and we are back in crisis mode. this is an economist lurching from crisis to crisis. boehner said this is what you get when you have divided government. you think that is the case? >> i am glad you asked the question. one of the most difficult votes any of us has cast is with president bush was president and we had a deeply falling in economy and a financial crisis, and president bush came to the democratic leadership of the house and senate and said we have a crisis and we are going to go into a deep depression if you do not act. two-thirds of president bush's party, just as they did yesterday, walked out on america. democrats stood with president bush because we thought the country was in a crisis, and we acted, and as a result of that
action, in my opinion, we avoided a depression. unfortunately we still had a deep recession which we are still suffering from, still pulling ourselves out. but the fact of the matter is we have been their time and time again to act in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that this government and this country remains stable and successful. >> the other point is, they were not divided in the senate. you had 80% of the republican senators' support this payroll tax cut. so, the real question is, why is it that the house republicans are so divided -- divided from the senate republicans and the senate democrats and house democrats and the president of the united states in getting something done. that is the question facing the house of representatives and i think the answer is pretty clear in the last couple of days. which is you have an extreme
right wing elements in the house of representatives that has hijacked the process and that is why they refuse to even bring up the bipartisan senate bill 4 and up or down vote because they were afraid they would get the same bipartisan result in the house as they got in the senate. they are afraid of bipartisanship and the reason is that they have this very right wing elements. let's also remember that the house republican leadership was opposed to a payroll tax cut. two months, three months, six months, one year. their record is full of statements where they were opposed to it. their action the other day by refusing to take up the senate compromise bill and sending this bill off to die it was in fact intended to accomplish what they had wanted to accomplish in the beginning, which is have no payroll tax cut. now, the reason mr. hoyer and i
went to the floor today was to give them another opportunity to do that. it is absolutely the case the speaker and the house and the republican leadership could have come down to the floor, could have ended a unanimous consent agreement to take up this bill, which is identical to the senate compromise bill, and we could have gotten this of today and american people could go to sleep tonight knowing that come january 1 they would have a payroll tax cut and unemployed americans looking for jobs would know they could still put food on the table and doctors could be assured they would be kate -- continue to be paid for their medicaid patients. >> let me just add -- >> c conferres -- >> there is a bipartisan agreement that was voted on republicans -- by republicans and democrats in the senate. in fact, it was the republican
leadership in the senate -- let's remember, the republican leadership from the senate blocked a vote on the house republican house bill in the senate. >> let me add, if i can come to your question, then i want to say something about the conferees. not only is there agreement and the overwhelming majority of the united states senate but the american public overwhelmingly agrees. poll after poll shows they think we ought to get this done. so, it is not just that the tea party-controlled conference over here disagrees with the united states senate. they are not representing the views of the american people. let me say something to the conferees. those that were appointed by speaker boehner have all opposed at one point in time will then another the extension of the tax cut. this is a device, a gimmick, a political charade, if you will, to pretend support for something that they have historically over
the last year have opposed. >> democrats have said they want the politics to end and give to business. republicans have said the same. with all respect -- the partisan dog and pony show we've attended in the last hour. if you want it to end, why is it you are still doing partisan gimmicks and the partisan dog and pony show, with all respect? >> with all respect -- dog and pony show? this is democracy. we are saying we believe very importantly we ought to pass what the senate -- no dog and pony show -- overwhelmingly support it. >> you knew you were not going to get recognized. and house republicans and their conference committee when they know there is not going to be
one. all of this seems like game playing at the time both sides are calling for the game to end. >> we are not playing a game. we are prepared to have the bill come back and pass it and send it to the president and we can do it today. that is not a game. none of the 160 million people who are going to lose their tax cut think it is a game. none of the americans concerned about continuing access to the doctors think it is a game. none on unemployment who were relying on the unemployment to feed themselves to support their families think this is a game. this is not a game. why are you all here? why are we able now to communicate to the american public? because we went to the floor, we went to the floor to speak to the american people and to the house. unfortunately, the speaker what off -- not speaker boehner but the speaker pro temp walked off the floor, shut off the cameras and it wanted to shut us down.
we are here on a very serious business. no games. that is what senator mccain was talking about, that is what senator brown is talking about, that is what senator olympia snowe is talking about, that is what senator lugar is talking about. they are talking about -- get this work done. and unfortunately, i can name you 12 instances i have on a list -- i will not bother to do that -- where the republicans have walked away from solving serious problems. this is not a game. thank you. >> house republican leaders also had remarks about the payroll tax and spoke to reporters just before a meeting with conference negotiators. >> good morning, everyone. yesterday, the house voted to reject the senate bill and ask for a conference with the senate
where we can resolve the differences between the two houses. i appointed the eight men and women sitting here with the majority leader and i to be our negotiators. we are here, ready to go to work, and we are hoping that the senate democrats will appoint negotiators, come to the table and resolve these differences. i think it is important to note that the president, the bipartisan leaders and the house and the bipartisan leaders in the senate, have all really ask for the same thing over the course of the last several months. let's extend the payroll tax cut for a full year. all we're asking for is to get the senate members over here to work with us to resolve our differences so we can do what everybody wants us to do -- extend the payroll tax credits for the next year. i am hoping they are ready to work as we are. >> good morning -- as the
speaker said, we are here in washington working today because we want to make sure that middle-class and working families in this country have some certainty that their taxes will not go up for the entirety of next year. that is the house position. frankly, that is the only issue with which we differ with the senate. and we are asking -- as the speaker said -- the senate majority leader to appoint conferees to join us to finish the work for the american people before the end of the year. if you think about it, people are sitting there across america scratching their heads wondering what washington is doing. by the very fact that the sense probably a mile away down pennsylvania avenue, we are sitting here, people wondered why can't they just get together and talk to work this out and that is what exactly we are asking them to do. the differences between us are not very great. all of us want to make sure that
people have tax relief certainly for the year. we could do this. we've got time. let's get to work. >> thank you. we just want the president to ask the majority leader of the senate leader ofconferees so we can work up the difference is to give working middle-class americans the tax relief they need and deserve, deal with the unemployment issue as well, and take care of our physicians who are about to receive a 27.4% cut in their reimbursement from medicare. we do not need to kick the can down for two months and come back to the same place and have these same arguments. we would like to get together, work these things out, move forward on something with lasting certainty for the marketplace, workers, physicians, and for the country. >> from georgia. when families and businesses have difficult is, what they do is get back to basics and nothing can be more basic and
wasn't in then a conference committee when the house and senate differ on a piece of legislation. we call on senator reid to appoint conferees so we can get together and sort out the differences. as a physician, i kentucky know medical practice, the hospital workers in two-month of blocks. the plan surgical procedures months in advance and unless we get along the period of time expended for the payroll tax temporary holiday as well as the -- >> we will leave this to go live now to manchester, new hampshire, for a campaign event for presidential candidate newt gingrich. the is expected to get the endorsement of the speaker of the new hampshire house of representatives. this is live coverage on c-span.
[applause] >> thank you very much, ladies and gentleman but let us get started. i wanted to say, first, thank you very much. i am and drove away, state director for newt here in new hampshire. i am honored to have you all in attendance. i am excited 10 speaker newt gingrich with us, i am excited to have speaker bill o'brien, lawrence sanborn and always beautiful calista today.
today is an exciting event. without going into details or spoiling the surprise, i want to give you a rundown very quickly of how the event is going to run. we are going to have our state chair, to the podium in a moment. then speaker bill o'brien give a few words. and then speaker newt gingrich will speak. and after he speaks for a minute -- unlike government rummy, we will actually take questions at a town hall -- unlike governor mitt romney, we will actually take questions at a town hall. without further ado, our state share, one of the hardest working reps in that house and we are honored to have heard leading the team in new hampshire. laurie? >> thank you, andrew.
it is so great to see all of you. i know the weather is not perfect and we are in the week of christmas but this is such a special event. as andrew mentioned, i am lori sanborn, assistant deputy majority leader in the statehouse. i am a freshman legislator and in my time now i created a new hampshire house business corporation -- coalition and many are in the room today and we accomplished a lot in new hampshire and i am excited about that. i am very excited to be recently appointed state chair for the newt campaign and -- and i want to thank all of the employees and volunteers who have been working very hard. we have a lot of work to do but i am eager to work with you and roll up my sleeves. i am looking forward to that. as a legislator and a business owner, i value results of all law. that is why i so enthusiastically support newt gingrich in his run for
president and why i am so honored to be the one to introduce our next speaker, the speaker of the new hampshire house, bill o'brien. he is a man who knows how to get results. in our time in office together, bill has done a great number of things. first and foremost, after we inherited and $800 million deficit in our state, we quickly balance the budget and reduced state spending by 17 percent. [applause] that is truly a historic achievement, and we could not have done it without a bill. in addition to that, we have done a number of government reforms, including reforming our state pension system. we have passed over 40 bills that rollback excessive regulations on our business community. and we have lowered the unemployment rate in new
hampshire. so, this is under the auspices of bill o'brien. we can't thank him enough. back in the 1970's i saw a quote from ronald reagan -- saying now is not the time for pastel colors but time for bald, primary colors. we have a bold leader in speaker o'brien. please join me in welcoming him on the stage. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. good afternoon. there are many standards to judge a presidential candidate. one of the best is past performance. by that measure, only one candidate this year has achieved the meaningful change in washington that we need, and that candidate is newt gingrich. while president obama promised both hope and change, the results have been a disastrous failure that accomplished only
one objective -- a massive growth in government. growth of finance at the expense of liberty and our children's and our grandchildren's future. as someone who believes in limited government, who believes in new hampshire's motto of live free or died, and believes my three children and my three grandchildren believe and america as a secure and financially sound as it was when i became an adult, i know we need -- we cannot continue down barack obama's disastrous path that will lead to bankrupting of our freedom and future generations. that is why it is not good enough just to defeat barack obama. we need to replace him with a president who has a clear sense with -- of where the country needs to go. we need to replace it with a president who ensures the era of
american greatness is over. we cannot afford candidates who put electoral convenience or extreme ideologies and head of bringing transformative change that will restore america's place in the world while making our federal government smaller, more efficient, and less of an impediment to our economy and liberty. after spending a considerable amount of time reviewing the candidates for president and coming to like and admire many of them -- perhaps most of them -- one person rose to the top as the person certain to bring positive, transformative change to washington. and that person is speaker newt gingrich. newt gingrich is the person who most certainly will get america back to the ideals that made our country great. he will return our country to being the beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world that it
has been for decades before the current presidency. newt gingrich is the one person who will most certainly bring fiscal discipline back to washington. his past performance, his track record, is exactly what we need now to solve today's problems in washington. look at that track record. while revisionist historians would like to credit the tremendous success of the 1990's to build clinton, of bill clinton had to show before newt gingrich's listed in the house was a failed stimulus plan, a failed attempt at national health care, a major tax increase, a bill to restrict second amendment rights, and, of course, midnight basketball. when newt took over, congress pushed the tax cut of 1997 which included a capital gains cut which created millions of jobs.
it was not bill clinton who displayed the political courage to hold the line on federal spending that led to the first balanced budget in four decades and that led to four balanced budget so, it was the house led by newt gingrich. it was not bill clinton who crafted the welfare reform that lifted millions out of poverty. instead, clinton twice vetoed welfare reform and it was only the dogged determination of newt gingrich's house of representatives that led to bill clinton finally agreeing to sign a bill for welfare reform that made welfare a bridge to work and not a dead end of dependency. these huge accomplishments would not have taken place without newt gingrich's vision and leadership. we desperately need that vision and leadership in the oval office today. these changes will be hard. i know firsthand because it is
what we are trying to do in new hampshire. and the only way to get there is with someone who has a clear goal of where our nation needs to go, and ability to articulate these complex ideas assembly and understandably, and an uncompromising level of determination to see things through. newt gingrich is not only that person. he has shown us that time and again he is that person. he is the right man at the right time for the presidency. i would wholeheartedly endorse his efforts, and i am committed to helping him deliver the leadership america so desperately needs today. mr. gingrich? [applause] >> oil well, thank you, speaker o'brien. i was sitting up here thinking, as someone who did help balance
the budget for four consecutive years, and as somebody who does the pitted twice in the only actual domestic discretionary spending cuts that we had since world war ii -- and ron reagan, 1981, was not a reduction in rate of growth -- 1995 speaker, we went down. when i think of what the speaker has achieved and spending cuts year -- could you imagine what washington would be like if they have the courage to match new hampshire in that kind of fiscal discipline? it would have been remarkable. i thank you for your leadership and for proving that the tea party movement can bring decisive commitment to real change and, at a practical level, can turn into something that creates jobs, attract new business, attracts new opportunities. it is a remarkable thing. your endorsement is particularly meaningful. we may want him to go around the country to do a road show saying obama budget, new hampshire
budget, obama budget, new hampshire budget -- it is a pretty good story. [applause] in addition, the first time i talked tolaurie, i was really excited and one of her to be part of the campaign because her commitment to having businesses have effective representation in the legislature is a key. i have twice participated in creating a lot of jobs -- as a very junior congressman i worked with jack kemp and number of people and we developed what was called supply-side economics. larry kudlow part of that. in the reagan administration would have a simple panted four parts -- cut taxes, cut regulations, focus on american energy, and favor the people who actually create jobs. tell them it is a good thing to go out and create a job. in the process, reagan created millions of new jobs,
unemployment came down from about 10.8% down to 5.6% in his presidency. in one month, august of 1983, we created 1,300,000 new jobs. when i became speaker, i basically picked up the reagan playbook. as speaker o'brien said, the first wave of the clinton administration was raising taxes, raising spending, crippling the economy and when i came in, frankly, the dow jones had not moved, things have not gotten any better, and we went back to the reagan playbook -- lower taxes, less regulation, more american energy, and a crowd of people who go to work every day and create jobs. the result was in the four years i was speaker, there were 11 million new jobs created. the reason i like what laurie has done is she is bringing in people who actually created jobs. this is the opposite of the obama model. obama raises taxes, increases
regulations, is anti-american energy and engages in class warfare against people who create jobs. then we wonder why the economy is a mess. by the way, the attack on american energy by the obama administration showed up this year in the highest average price of gasoline in american history. in 2011, americans pay more for gasoline than any time in american history. if you are an editorial writer for "the new york times" and you ride the subway getting to work you probably did not notice this. but if you live in rural america, small town america, medium-size america, you probably noticed immediately. if you drive a car, you probably noticed it. if you would like to visit your children or grandchildren -- over christmas, people would drive to visit their relatives are going to notice this. when gasoline prices and diesel prices and heating oil prices, they go through the economy and cause pain along the way.
i like the idea that we are going to work with businesses with fiscal conservatism to get things done. calista the mind of the we also want to come here to say something that is not political -- reminded me we also want to come here and say something that is not political, which is merry christmas. [laughter] [applause] so, i would just say one or two things about the race. i have to confess, of the iowa race has gotten to be a real mess. i think my good friends have bought about $7 million of negative advertising and we just cheerfully go forward and tell the truth and it is interesting to watch out the audiences react. the american people are not stupid. people know if there is a negative ad zumbar they probably bought it and -- and if you see it several times in an hour, they probably raised too much money. i want to say to you what i have been saying out there -- i will
be here on a positive campaign. we are in trouble as a country. we need to focus on how to get out of trouble, we need to talk about the solutions that will get us out to trouble. if you go to newt.org, a proposed 21st century contract with america. we will grow and develop it and by december 27, the anniversary of the contract, we will post the legislative part and by october 1 we will post a series of executive orders that will indicate exactly what i will do as the first day of president and first will eliminate all of the white house czars as of that moment. [applause] so, i am very prepared to campaign. i will also tell you, because i think the issues are so huge -- if the choice is barack obama and newt gingrich. on the one hand you have a saul olinsky radical , he used to
teach his model in chicago. community leaders -- that was political radicalism. and on -- on the other hand of someone who believes passionately in the declaration of independence and that our rights come from our creator, and alienable, and sovereignty resides in you, that you are a citizen and not a subject and we the people the find the government. so, the gap philosophically is enormous. on one side you have the finest food stamp president in american history. no one has done more to put more people on food stamps than barack obama. i would like to be the finest paycheck president in american history. [applause] and in terms of winning the general election, let me point out that at this point in 1979, ronald reagan was 30 points behind jimmy carter. the leading media did everything
they could to make reagan unacceptable. a lot of stuff they said about reagan they have pulled back up and say about me. and they are right. look, if you want a cozy washington business-as-usual establishment, you don't want to me. it that establishment -- that establishment is both republican and democrat. you can tell who the establishes -- establishment is -- the ones who are frightened. but as the company got to know reagan the company will ask -- country ask a simple question that we will s. it is four years of barack obama good enough -- do you really want eight years? it is that simple question. four more years. he started with "yes, we can." new campaign slogan will be "let me explain why we couldn't." [laughter] so, there is a gap. the last point i want to make to you about that -- is if you help me -- and i think we have a real
chance in new hampshire to surprise people because i think the philosophical differences are not just between me and obama but they are between me and some of the other candidates. and if you will help me, when i become your nominee, i will challenge president obama to seven, three-hour debate in the lincoln-douglas tradition with a timekeeper but no moderator. and i will can see up front that he can have a teleprompter. [laughter] [applause] let's be fair. if you had to defend obamacare, wouldn't you want a teleprompter? now, people think he wanted the baby and i will give you three reasons i believe he is going to debate. the first is precedence -- he
announced an president in 2007 in springfield, illinois, quoting abraham lincoln. the second is ego. this is a columbia university harvard law school editor of the "harvard law review," the best orator of the democratic party. how does he look in the mirror and say he is afraid to debate someone who taught at west georgia college? the third is practical -- as many of you know, i studied american history, and when i studied it, i learned that abraham lincoln, when he announced -- he had only been in congress for one term, he had been a state legislator. he announced against the best known u.s. senator and a man people assumed would be the next president. he said there are 105 days left -- let's debate every day. stephen douglass said, i don't think so. so, lincoln began to follow douglas. and in about three weeks douglas figured out that lincoln was
getting the press coverage for his rebuttals to douglas's speeches. after about three weeks, but was sri lankan and said it, all right, i will agree to debate you. but i am not going to go back to the two -- first two districts you already chased me in, i will do the seven. the debates or so central, i think they are the most and for exploration of constitutional freedoms as the federalist papers. they were carried widely in the newspapers. each of the seven debates got its own coverage. linkedin the next year had it reprinted as a book and it was a major factor to his rise as the president's candidates. if you make me the nominee, in tampa, when i get the acceptance speech, if the president has not yet agreed to have a series of seven debates, i will announce that night in my acceptance speech that whitehouse at that
moment is my scheduler -- wherever he goes, i will show up four hours later and i will answer his speech every single time. and in the age of talk radio and 24-hour television news, my hunch is it will take about two weeks for the white house to decide that is a losing proposition and to the side having us on the same stage debates in america prosecutor, talking about who we are the loss topically and who we are at a practical achievement level is a less painful than having a show of at every single town shortly after the president. so, with your help, we will set up one of the most exciting and most important elections in american history, maybe the most decisive sense 1860, in defining america, and with your help i am convinced people will vote for paychecks over food stamps, they will vote for the american declaration of independence over radical socialism, they will vote for strength in foreign
policy over weakness, and they will vote for somebody who wants to work with the american people -- not somebody who wants to dictate to the american people. i think that will make this a truly historic election. and it is all made possible by the folks up here who have been very helpful and for andrew hemingway doing a terrific job as our leader in the state, and i am very much looking forward to questions. [applause] >> all right, we will start here pretty yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] i wanted to talk about welfare -- [inaudible]
then i believe in preventive care and early testing for a variety of conditions. colonoscopy, one of the most successful single intervention to save lives because: cancer called early is very easy to deal with and when it is caught late, it is fatal. there are things we should do, no question. i told people all along, if you write a 2700 page bill, there is a pretty good chance you get 300 pages right. let's stipulate. there are 300 good pages in obamacare. but i don't trust the washington standard. what i would do is repeal the bill and take the good pages and pass them, but i would not like to rewrite 80% or 9% because i'd
been not trust the washington staff at 2:00 in the morning. there are pieces -- i happen to favor help information technology, which is in the bill, which i think will save lots of lives and billions of dollars. but i think if there are good ideas in the bill, they can be passed as freestanding small bills because they are peak -- things people want. i would try to fast track and to get them passed quickly and figure but the bridging mechanism is so you do not have a break up in services. but i would first start -- this is in my 21st century contract -- i would ask the new congress that comes in january 3 to repeal obamacare, dodd-frank, and sarbanes are obsolete before my inauguration and hold the bills until it gets inaugurated so obama cannot veto them and then i would sign them probably on the 21st or the 22nd of january and then i would ask congress to go to work immediately on putting back in place those pieces that are really good that most americans
really worked. that if you take key positions -- take food stamps versus paychecks. the gap here is so wide, it is very hard even for the elite media to distort it. so, -- american energy versus by brazilian entity. the president goes to brazil and says i want to be your best customer. the president is not assigned to be a far purchasing agent. he should sell american products. that is a gap that is so big between purchasing agent of brazilian oil and selling u.s. manufacturing goods -- it is pretty hard for them to distort it. plus, my experience is the american people have got a lot smarter. we have hundreds of sources of information. we have lots of ways of having conversations. and people get used to reading things. let me give you one example. when i first became speaker, there was an enormous shock to
the establishment. no republican had one in 40 years. they knew it could not be good. you could see that shocked on election night in their eyes. point before i was even sworn in, time magazine has me on the cover as scrooge. this is christmas season, right? holding tiny tim's broken crutch. it was not that i stole his correct, i broke it. the title of the cover was -- how mean well newt gingrich's america be to the poor? the following week, "newsweek" won its catch up and i had a doctor suess figure entitled the grinch that stole christmas. this was the elite media's idea of fairness. this is what happens with average americans -- they say he is for welfare reform. 92% issue.
it did not hurt us at all. we were the first reelected majority since 1928 despite every effort to stop us. so, i think what i've got to do is i've got to have a compelling message. i have to use youtube and facebook and twitter and all of the different devices that allow us to communicate around the elite media. we have to have talk radio. it appears much easier because we have something as saw the late conservative as "the manchester union leader," it sort of undoes half of the "the new york times" damage. "the des moines register" endorsed the right liberal and the "manchester union leader" endorsed the person who was conservative. >how many people here are
refugees from massachusetts? raise your hand. [laughter] ok. we will have a conversation. i would -- was thinking of having a massachusetts rally in new hampshire and i am now convinced having a -- "please, don't turn america into massachusetts." [applause] i do not have andrew's permission but maybe when i fly in from iowa we could have a massachusetts reminder rally so everyone could be reminded of the real choice between two very different approaches to governing. i now realize, we could get a lot of folks without having to get anyone to drive up from massachusetts. but, go ahead. >> [inaudible] the payroll tax cut. >> in an ideal world, this is
not how you would solve thing. but i agree with john boehner -- if you are going to extend the cut, extended for a year. any of you who are in business and have to deal with payrolls, know that the idea you will get a two month extension and then you did not know what will happen next, because they could have another crisis and late february -- this is about as stupid a way to run a country and this is embarrassing. this is worthy of the italian parliament. [laughter] and to have the senate leave. i am very sympathetic to speaker boehner. i did not realize it at the time -- i was very fortunate to work with bill clinton. i would not have said it to you at the time did he had been governor for 12 years, the governor of a conservative state. obama never actually served in the illinois senate because he was busy running for the u.s. senate and did not actually serve in the u.s. senate because it is busy running for president and now he has not really served
as president because he has been busy running for reelection, so he has no government experience. [applause] so, -- and harry reid. i was fortunate because i had a republican senate. harry reid is a totally partisan democrat who arrogantly -- they pass a bill and leave the city. by what right does the senate decide they are the designers of america's future, and they leave? i think every center of the be told to go back to washington and get the job done, pass a year-long bill, get stability, and let's move to something new. but we look embarrassingly incompetent as a country and i can tell you of the three key players, boehner, harry reid, and obama, i think boehner has had the most coverage and has been the most willing to do the right thing and the other two have been not only zero help but destructive, while candidly
manipulating the press to make boehner look bad. it is dominant religion. it barack obama believes he could have another 365 days of manipulation he completely underestimated the ability of the american people to see through fraud and understand the corzine macro -- model of free enterprise does not work and the obama model does not work, either. the braves. -- be brave. >> how would you govern differently, if at all, from george w. bush? then i would be very different from president bush. i did not say it as a negative of president bush but i came out of the reagan wing of the party. there are two components of the reagan wing -- one is sm and the other is an absolute identity but the american people. we did a movie with reagan called "front of the with the
destiny." if you listen to his speeches, they are about us -- destiny."s with i never ask you to be for me, because of the are for me you will go home and say i sure hope he fixes it. i can't. i ask you to be with me, to stand next to me for eight years. if you watch reagan's farewell address, it is all about us, what we did. i think it is very important. i will give you one example. >> do you think bush did not do that? >> there was a bush plan for social security. you cannot have a bush plan for social security immediately after winning a negative campaign in which all you prove there were more anti-kerry boater's then anti-bush voters
because anti-bush voters were against them from day one. titling it the bush plan -- if they have young girl members of congress go out and create -- on 85 campuses we have young people now leading the effort for a younger american right to choose a personal socialists' security savings account. but it is not newt gingrich, it is younger americans. we are basing it in galveston, texas, with 30 years' experience and saying to grandparents who will not be affected all -- do you mind if your grandchildren are allowed to have control of your savings so no politician can rip them off? do you mind if your grandchildren are allowed to have two or three times as much retirement income than they will get from the government. did you mind if your grandchildren controlled the year they decide to retire based on what they are doing rather than politicians. do you mind if the american people increase the size of the american economy by saving all
this money. chile today, the size of their social security savings system is 72% of the economy. it is so big they are allowing chileans to invest outside the country. the estimate from harvard when it was first developed is over a generation, you reduce income inequality in america by 50% -- i am waiting for "the new york times" to confirm this. because every single worker and of owning stocks and bonds, every single worker a capitalist, every single person has a real estate which you do not have under social security. he literally -- you literally reduce inequality by raising people up and not spending your time to rural people down, like obama. it is estimated you would increase the size of the national economy dramatically. you get a bigger economy with bigger paychecks which allows it
to get more savings so you have a better retirement with more jobs. but the difference is, this will only pass if in hundreds of college campuses the students decide they want it. the people have to be for it. reagan was a genius at convincing the people. he used to say, my job is to show the lights to the american people so they will turn up the heat on congress. so, you have a strong, effective american leader -- has to be one with the people. then you can change washington did and i spent a lot of my time worrying about how to "we the people " thethey the establishment. i do not want to learn how to manage the establishment but to change it. that is the fundamental difference. thank you very, very much. [applause]
>> ice all new -- what do we have to do to get to the point where someone says, i am offended by that, and -- [inaudible] >> how are you? >> it was really good. >> it is her sixth project. >> could you sign my book? >> what is your name? >> i am joy. >> thank you for coming today. >> do you want to sign it, too? >> thank you so much.
>> how are you? >> good. >> good. i hope you are enjoying it? >> i am. >> thank you. what is your name? >> tony. >> do you have a stated policy on the federal reserve? >> it should be at newt.org. i would audit it, they have to publish their decision documents from 2008-2010 and i will repeal the bill which told we confused them. i would have them go back to a solid money policy of no inflation. and i would ask for 92 resign and if he refused i would ask congress to terminate his term -- ask for burning key to resign. how are you? then i moved down there because
i see you on c-span. i said, this guy is brilliant. i have to get out of here. where am i going to go? >> that is fun. >> i had to come back and i said, where do i go? new hampshire. in the air is much cleaner here. >> good to see you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> all right. there you go. how are you? >> i want to ask you, do you still believe in jack kemp of the big tent? >> absolutely. >> on this morning at "washington journal" we discussed campaigns and elections, and health campaigns are tracking voters online. weekend on c-
span3. "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesdays, we focus on magazines. today it is "campaigns & elections." like it or not, you are being tracked. what is the message? guest: you are being tracked. they use these things called cookies. it drops a little file in your computer. they collect data from you -- as the codes, gender -- from you, like zip codes and gender. this is anonymous. they do not know our names or have our social-security numbers, but they do have a lot of information on us. host: 2011 was supposed to be a
big year. many expected it to mark the start of the regulatory trend that would put the squeeze on these marketeers who track online consumers. you go on to say that -- that mean that nothing is happening? guest: this should transcend partisanship. people on both sides of the aisle are pretty wary of the impact and this could -- impact this could have. this could change the internet the way we know it. lawmakers are wary of
overreaching. this could have unintended consequences. things are stalled. there are about seven bills on the hill. the white house is moving forward with a proposal. we'll see where it goes. host: "people involved in political advertising are now in the same boat as the consumer advertiser." guest: people compare europe and the united states on this. one consultant to my have read basically points to the united states as a third-world -- one consultant whom i have read basically opposed to the united states as a third-world country in regards to internet privacy. who is for this, who is against? guest: it isn't that easy.
lawmakers are very skeptical about some of the proposals floating around. others are very open to it. senator claire mccaskill, a democrat from missouri, she says this could basically change the internet, cut the legs out from underneath it. like i said, this is one of the ways that we have a free internet. if some of this legislation goes forward, it could hinder that and basically changed the game . other people have no idea that their information is being tracked. about 60% of the public says, whoa, we do not want these marketers having our information that we do not give them. a mixed bag. tweets --werewer
can you touch on that? guest: they are also on her facebook page. they know a lot about -- they are also on your facebook page. they know a lot about us. whether it was the first telegram -- connecting baltimore with the capital -- as is commonly a sense -- this is, in a sense, nothing new. they are picking up on it and using the same technology to commercial marketers are using, which raises a lot of concern. host: let's say you're on the macy's website, looking for holiday gifts. the tracker will indicate he
might be interested in something from nordstrom's -- you might be interested in sending run nordstrom's, j.c. penney's -- in something from nordstrom's, j.c. penney's, which can be helpful. what's wrong with that? guest: some argue that nothing is wrong with it. some of these companies, even google or facebook, might be taking 40 or 50 pieces of information from you 40 or 50 different ways. they are storing it, they are marketing their ads. as consumers, we say, wait, we never authorize you to have that information -- authorized you to
have that information, nor authorized facebook or google to sell it. host: what would be tracked? guest: it is interesting. if you are buying tv adlets, you want to hit potential voters, a lot of those are going to be seen in illinois. this targets ads within specific congressional districts, specific states. it saves them money, which proponents say is healthy, good for campaigns, helped the underdog us-- helps the use money more wisely.
glory from brooklyn, go ahead. caller: i find it really disturbing. i do notice -- i spend a lot of time on facebook. sometimes i can have a personal chat and some of the ads are about personal conversations i have had. i know the ads are directed toward me. where is the information being kept? do we have access to it? guest: right now, we do not have access to it. it is a majority of americans. i use g-mail. it sends -- it is weird being hit with an ad about an e-
mail you just sent to a friend or to grandma. some of the legislation would help you to see what information they have and what a third party's, marketers, they are selling it to -- what third parties, marketers, they are selling it to. there are some ways to opt out of this. right now, they are completely regulating themselves, which lawmakers say they are failing at that. some companies are doing better at providing that information. some are not doing it at all. host: if you listen to c-span radio, our topic is "how campaigns are using the internet." good morning.
>> we are going live now to the justice department with the attorney general eric holder, housing secretary shaun donovan and others announcing a legal settlement regarding home mortgage lending. >> the illinois attorney general and a good friend, lisa madigan, and shaun donovan, and governor cerebellum rest of the federal reserve. in announcing the largest settlement reaching -- reached in history of our nation. we resolve the government's allegations that countrywide and its subsidiaries, which are now owned by the bank of america, engaged in discriminatory mortgage lending practices against more than 200,000 qualified african-american and
hispanic borrowers from 2004 to 2008. the settlement provides three and $35 million in compensation to victims of country ride's discrimination -- countrywide's discrimination when it originated more than 4 million mortgage loans. in the investigation, the department uncovered a pattern for practice of discrimination involving victims in more than 180 markets across 41 states and the district of columbia. these at included widespread violations of the fair housing act and the equal credit opportunity act, and resulted in african-american and hispanic borrowers been charged higher rates for mortgage loans, solely because of their race or national origin. these allegations represent alarming conduct by one of the largest mortgage lenders in the
country during the height of the housing market boom. for example, in 2007, the qualified african-american customer borrowing $200,000, paid an average of $1,200 more in fees than a similarly qualified white bar or. this settlement will compensate the african-american and hispanic borrowers who were victims of discriminatory conduct, including more than 10,000 who despite the fact they were qualified for prime loans were steered into sub-prime loans. some-prime borrowers are often subjected to penalties and higher interest rates, and have a greater likelihood of default and foreclosure than those who have prime loans. often the impact of discriminatory lending practices can reach further, potentially harm in a bar or's credit, inhibiting their ability to find housing, employment, or access
to education, and depriving entire committees of economic opportunities. today's settlement makes clear that the justice department and the department's behind me will not hesitate to move aggressively in holding lenders, including the nation's largest accountable for misconduct. we are committed to protecting the sacred rites and best interests of the american people, and to ensuring equal opportunity for the vigorous enforcement of our civil rights laws. nowhere is this commitment more evident than in the work of the fair lending unit, which has filed or resolved 10 fair lending matters since its formation last february, and additional seven lawsuits are currently pending. the department stands ready to hold financial institutions accountable to remedy and prevent discriminatory conduct. through critical interagency partnerships for the diverse
networks of relationships we have forged with the federal reserve board, the consumer financial protection bureau, state and local officials, and law enforcement and regulatory partners, the justice department will continue to vigorously pursue those who would take advantage of certain americans because of their race, national origin, and gender, or disability. such conduct undercuts the notion of a level playing field for all consumers, betrays the promise of equal opportunity enshrine in our constitution and legal framework, and under this administration is harmful and discriminatory practices simply will not be tolerated. as we of done through this settlement, the department will pursue remedies and reforms the preserve and protect equal opportunity for all americans. i would like to thank the many professionals, attorneys, and
support staffs that of made this announcement possible, and whose department -- dedicated efforts against the core mission of the department every day. . i would like to turn this over to tom for a. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. is an honor to be here today to announce this settlement. at the core of allegations is a simple story, if you're african- american or latino and went to country ride for a loan, you likely paid more simply because the color of your skin. you likely paid more than a white bar or if you receive your -- barbara were if you received your loan from a countrywide lender. if you're african-american or latino your more likely to be steered into a risky sub-prime loan. more than 20,000 african-
american and latino victims are identified in the complaint which alleges they were charged higher prices were steered into more risky products because of the color of their skin rather than the content of their creditworthiness. countrywide built a business based in large part of the trust they earned as the getty family's to the most important financial transaction of their lives. if they understood marketing, how to build trust. two thirds of the victims are latinos. as our complaint outlined, they exploited this trust. was the countrywide business strategy to target local african-american and latino markets to expand lending and ultimately gain market dominance in making residential loans in these communities. once the borrowers walked into countrywide's doors, they did not receive fair and equal terms. in fact, they received
discriminatory terms, and chances are the victims had no idea whatsoever they were being victimized. they were thrilled to have gotten a loan, and realized the american dream. if they had no idea they could have and should have gotten a better deal. this is discrimination with a smile. this was one of the most extensive investigations and our history. we reviewed data on over two 0.5 million loans, including data loan terms and information on borrowers' creditworthiness. if this investigation was the result of the critical and close partnership with bank regulatory agencies. the board of governors of the federal reserve refer this message to the department. the federal reserve contributions to our investigation were significant, and we are honored to have the governor with us today.
we received a referral from the former office of supervision, which is now under the office of the comptroller of the currency, after they also determine that countrywide engage in a pattern or practice of pricing discrimination. in our complaint, which alleged that from 2004 to 2008 countrywide engaged in discrimination based on race or national origin. the time in question represented the height of the house in kabul. it is important to focus on this time frame because practices -- because of abusive practices were unchecked. we looked at a claim based on marital status discrimination. the first two involve discrimination in the pricing of lungs. the complaint alleges that between 2004 and 2008,
countrywide business practices allowed employees and mortgage brokers to very a loan's interest rate and other fees from the price it said based on the borrower's objective creditworthy factors. simply stated, countrywide determine your price based in your creditworthiness, then gave employees and broker's discretion to alter the price without providing any guidance or much ring for fair compliance, and guess who benefited? our complaint alleges that countrywide charged more than two when it thousand latino and african american borrowers higher fees and costs than non- hispanic, white borrowers, not based on risk, but simply because of race or national origin. both prime and sub-prime borrowers were charged more for loans. the complaint also alleges that between 2004 and 2007, business practices allowed employees and
brokers to place a loan applicant in a sub-prime loan, even when the applicant was qualified for a prime loan, according to underwriting practices. this goes to the heart of some of the most harmful practices during the sub-prime boom. as a result of these policies and practices, the odds of an african-american or latino bar were receiving a sub-prime loan were more than twice as high. more than 10,000 latino and african-american borrowers where place in sub-prime loans, even though not hispanic, white borrowers with similar credit were place in prime loans. hispanic and african-american borrowers who were steered into sub-prime loans paid on average tens of thousands of dollars more for loans and were subject to risk penalties, increased risk of credit problems, the fault and foreclosure, and the emotional distress that accompanies these abuses.
our complaint alleges that between 2004 and 2008, countrywide violated the equal opportunity act by requiring spouses to sign away their rights to the home. so, for instance, a husband was the only applicant, the law prohibits lenders from requiring his wife to give up her rights in the home as a condition to giving him a loan. while a lender has a right to ensure they could foreclose on the property, requiring a wife to surrender her rights in the home to her husband at the time the loan is made is illegal, plain and simple. as i said, on their race and national origin claims, there are more than 20,000 victims identified, two-thirds of whom are latino. while the complaints than virtually every corner of the country, california, the corporate headquarters for countrywide was the epicenter of discriminatory activity.
30% of the victims were in california. an unprecedented number actually understates the extent of the harm. these borrowers represent families, many of whom did not know, and still do not know they were victims of discrimination, and especially in the case of steering, this harms the with the borrowers and their families, but communities at large. the fee we provided today provides for three and a $35 million in relief for victims of discrimination and sense for a process to identify and compensate these individuals. i want to commend the dedicated career and civil-rights positions, the support staff, and those in our sister agencies that are here today and were involved in the effort to insure equal opportunity to access the american dream. i've already mentioned the
important role of the federal reserve, ots and occ, and my colleagues at hud, led by shaun donovan, as well as other banking regulatory agencies -- the consumer protection financial the consumer protection bureau is here. they were prepared to work together with us on this matter. i would like to thank my good friend, the u.s. attorney in the central district of california for his leadership and partnership, and i would be remiss if i did not think the attorney general of illinois, lisa madigan, who continues to be a leader across the country on fair lending issues. finally, i would like to commend the attorney general for his leadership. his great to work for a boss that tells you to follow the law and do the right thing. that is what i hear day in and day out. the fair lending unit he
established has brought more cases and receive more referrals from regulators than ever before. we appreciate that and we will continue to work for equal opportunity across this country. we also appreciate the cooperation from bank of america during the course of our negotiations, and i want to citywide to its president, brian moynihan, and others who worked with us in resolving this matter. it is now my privilege to turn to secretary shaun donovan who is been a leader for the administration and our efforts to combat the housing crisis. >> thank you. i want to add my thanks and my great debt of edited for the partnership of all my colleagues join us today, and practically to attorney general older who has been -- holder
who is been a leader on this issue. today, we're taking an important step to protect families across the nation as the department of justice receives a settlement on behalf of 41 states and the district of columbia. in so doing, we write all wrong. countrywide charge more than 200,000 african-americans and latino families more for their loans because of their race and ethnicity, and further put more than 10,000 of those families who qualify for six loans in the prime market into risky, sub- prime mortgages. the same time, white borrowers were steered into sit for a crime loans. every family has paid a steep price for their irresponsibility and recklessness on wall street over the next -- last decade, but no group has experienced pain of this crisis more than african-american and mounting a families. between 2005 and 2009, two-
thirds of median household wealth was wiped out from jamaica, queens, in new york city, to california, strong, middle-class african-american neighborhoods that saw two decades of gains watch them reversed not in the years, but months. anyway you look at it, that is a tragedy, when this administration refuses to accept. if that is why we of pushed the banks are to keep responsible families in their home, and because we have foreclosures are down 45% since the first month of the obama administration. at the federal housing administration, we have withdrawn the approval of over 1600 lenders to participate in fha programs. that is why we created a consumer financial protection bureau, with the sole mission of protecting ordinary americans from the abuses we are
discussing today. today's announcement builds on these efforts. the purpose of this proposed rule is simple, to strengthen the tools we have to pursue housing discrimination based not just on the intent to discriminate, but whether the facts show that it happened. he as you heard the attorney general say, it is the largest fair housing discrimination settlement in the history of our nation. he will not solve all the problems this housing crisis has inflicted -- it will not solve all the problems this housing crisis has inflicted on our country. we push to get more help for borrowers, and wyatt proposed as part of the american jobs at a $15 billion project rebuild that would target construction jobs and renovation to the hardest-
hit neighborhoods by foreclosure. all of these actions reflect this administration's believe as president obama said earlier this month, that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone gets -- does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. that is what all these are about. it is why i am proud to stand with my colleagues here, today. thank you. i would like to invite attorney general lisa madigan up to the podium, and let me say to lisa who i've had the pleasure to work closely with, she has been absolutely relentless and completely focused on the problems and the misdeeds that led to this housing crisis. i believe more than any other attorney general, she has been consistently focused not just on
the fair-lending aspect, but more broadly on what could be done to hold the institutions accountable, and to right the wrongs done to families and communities, across this country. thank you for your leadership and for joining us today. >> for the past year and a half, i have litigated a fair lending lawsuit against countrywide for discriminating against borrowers in illinois. i am very pleased to join the justice department's landmarks settlement the bank of america over these claims to the settlement is a significant step in federal and state efforts to hold mortgage lenders accountable for the devastation they of cost american families. one countrywide was the largest mortgage lender in the nation, it was all leading lender of fraudulent sub-prime bombs that were at the heart of the collapse of our housing market and the implosion of our economy.
countrywide charged higher rates on mortgages and sold the poorest quality loans to african-american and latino borrowers. my investigation found that african-american and latino borrowers were three times more likely than similarly credit- situated white borrowers to receive a high-cost, sub-prime loan from countrywide. an independent report found that african-american earning more than one-third of the region was hundred thousand dollars a year -- one of the thousand dollars a year, were more likely to be placed into a sub-prime loan than a white person earning $35,000 a year. even when they received loan -- prime loans, they often pay higher for them. because bar wars of caller had a far greater chance of being sold the tax alone, they not only paid more for their mortgage upfront, but they're
paying a much higher price now. no one who looks at the numbers can dispute that committees of color have been hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis and will feel the effects longer. according to a recent study from the center for responsible lending, african-american and latino holders are more than twice as likely -- home owners are more than twice as likely to lose their homes as wide parlors. we see too many neighborhoods were boarded up houses out of the homes occupied by families. he's devastated neighborhoods are some of the most powerful evidence of the disruptive and lasting effects of discriminatory mortgage lending. it does on behalf residents of these neighborhoods in illinois that i join with the department of justice in this settlement that oppose the basic american tenant of justice and fairness for all. people's access to credit and the terms of their credit should be determined on a fair and equal basis, not on the basis of
the color of the bar were compelled skin. when mortgage lenders violate our state and our nation's anti- discrimination laws, they will be held accountable. i want to thank my big consumer fraud attorneys -- attorneys for working on this lawsuit since march of 2008 when we send out subpoenas, and i commend attorney-general eric holder, and the assistant attorney general for their commitment in this investigation and bring the settlement to fruition. i also want to commend secretary shaun donovan for the work he has done and will continue to do to eliminate this terrible impact we're having from the housing crisis. thank you. >> somebody else? ok. we'll take any questions. >> this is the largest in his repaired what was the previous largest, and separately, is the
illinois suit been dropped? >> sure. the illinois region we were at the table with attorney general lisa madigan, and that settlement will resolve in issues in illinois a pair the largest settlement previous to this involves two subsidiaries with aig, and the amount was $6.1 million in that particular case. >> will attend thousand borrowers steered into sub-prime loans -- will the 10,000 are were steered into sub-prime loans get higher compensation, and since it was figured out to be $17,000 per bar or, do you think that is enough? >> victims of steering wheel, in fact, get higher compensation because the harm was greater. so, for instance, in california, the amount of harm
would be greater because home values were greater at that point, and as a result home loans were greater, and the impact, frankly, of the movement into the toxic loans was that much greater, so, absolutely come out the victim's of steering would, in fact, receive more, and this is the first case in which we have included a claim involving residential steering. it was really one of the most abusive practices in the industry. the amount of money that someone will get in the pricing context will obviously depend on the work that lies ahead, and it could range from a few hundred dollars, to a couple thousand dollars. frankly, the amount of money is one important thing to compensate them for what effectively amounted to a race-
based surtax, but the principle is far more important, or equally-important, i should say, because equal credit opportunity is equal credit opportunity, and when people are denied that, we will aggressively move forward. so, the money in this is very important -- 3 and $35 million is a potentially higher than the -- 3 and $35 million is exponentially higher than the most recent settlement i refer to, and it is only part of the story. the story is about insuring debt latino and african-american communities, which were hardest- hit, have often is again to realize the american dream. >> are there an internal company documents that laid the cell to your able to reveal? >> i cannot comment that -- late this out that you are able to reveal?
>> i cannot comment on that. the complaint speaks for itself. >> can you tell us anything about the servicing settlement, and where that stands? >> i am happy to address that. one of the things that is particularly important about today's announcement is that it demonstrates that while the servicing discussions we are having are part of a similarly aggressive and far-reaching said investigations, investigations that include -- and could 10 federal agencies, as well as a large -- included 10 federal agencies, as well as a large number of attorney general's, there are a bit -- aimed at the same results in terms of accountability and in terms of substantial help to families and the housing market more broadly. one of the things that it makes clear, which i think has been
misunderstood, is that these discussions and the investigations that we'd done around the servicing violations and problems -- that we have done around the servicing violations and problems are one piece of the broader pattern of conduct that led to the housing crisis, and any settlement discussions we have will not limit or stop us from pursuing as aggressively as we possibly can all of the remaining issues that led to the crisis which the fair lending violations, the origination and securitization violations -- none of which from the federal side would be constrained or limited by the issues we are discussing within the service in settlement. so, the scale of those claims is one small part of the potential recoveries we could have. in terms of the status of those discussions, what i would say is we continue to make good progress on those.
we have continued to work closely with the state attorneys general, and i would expect in the very near future we will be able to come forward with more public discussions of exactly where we are on that settlement. >> i did not quite understand the answer about if it was enough for the people that were steered. is it purely a dawdled -- dollar settlement? is there any rate element for people paying higher rates? >> this settlement does not contain any provisions as you refer to. this settlement will compensate victims for the loss of they'd been incurred. there is not a need -- that they incurred. there is not a need for a just settlement because countrywide no longer existed >> "the wall street journal reported that chinese hackers infiltrated the
u.s. chamber of commerce. i'm wondering how concerning this is, and what the department of justice can do as part of the investigation. >> i do not want to comment on any specifics from view race, but we have announced a number of -- from what you raised, but we have announced intentions to meet concerns given with the potentially interested impact of cyber attacks, hacking into -- interests of the impact of cyber attacks, hacking into governmental institutions. it is something we are focused on. is it 21st century priority as one looks at what the possibilities are with regard to critical infrastructure as well as other governmental and private entities. this is something we have to be concerned about and something we are focusing a great deal of potential on.
this is something the national security council focuses a great deal of attention on. >> does this put countrywide's problems behind bank of america? are there any other investigations related to countrywide activity that the justice department has at this point? >> i -- again, we dealt with their fair lending matters, and the settlement explicitly indicates that this settlement disposes of fair lending issues during the relevant time of 2004 up until be to the toll of 2008. that is the focus of this particular settlement -- off until the end of 2008 appeared that is the focus of this particular settlement. any matters outside of this would not be covered. >> with regards to the riding of the regulations of the department for dissipates him, can you talk to us about what
problems with the law in those regulations? >> you have to look at where the law ended, and where it started. we made substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the demonstration, to something with which we still have problems, but i think for the creation of these procedures, these regulations we will be cresting, i think we can minimize the problems -- crafting, i think we can minimize the problems, working with partners and having people on the hill listen to the concerns that we raise. we have moved a substantial way from that which the president to talk about the potential for a the dough. we are in a better place with regulations, and procedures will help. we will have a signing statement from the president that will clearly delineate how we view
this law. >> could you give a quick update -- wikileaks has been in the nearest. dna -- been in the news lately. you have any update? >> i think would be inappropriate to comment at this point about where we stand. >> are there any other fair lending investigations? >> we have a host of others. >> this weekend, three days of american history tv and c-span 3. saturday, visit the congressional cemetery on "american art affects pickup at 8:00, from "lectures in history"
american prosperity in the 1950's and 1960's. sunday, the white house chefs dating back to the carter administration, and monday, highlights of c-span coverage of the 70th anniversary of the attacks on pearl harbor. at 7:30 p.m., if the history of native american military service. [applause] >> republican presidential candidate ron paul held a town hall meeting monday night in manchester, new hampshire. today, he is campaigning in iowa had of that state's presidential caucuses on january 3. monday night's event in new hampshire was almost an hour.
>> we have many distinguished guests, including senator a white -- ray white, representatives mike ball, and that swank. thank you for being here for this event. tonight's town hall will consist of a short interview between myself and dr. paul. after, we will open the hall to your questions. we know there are a lot of ron paul supporters here tonight, and we thank you very much for your support, but we want to encourage undecided voters to ask their questions first. dr. ron paul is a 12-term congressman, and he is, without a doubt the champion of liberty in the united states. there is so much i could sit to introduce him, and so much some of us know, and undecided voters will get to know, but consistency, integrity, and strict adherence to the
constitution is all it takes for me to say i am glad to call ron paul our next president. i'm hoping that the city to a tonight, you state say the same. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> dr. ron paul, you've been married for 53 years. how did you beat your wife? >> that is an interesting story, and -- how did you meet your wife? >> that is an interesting story, and i had better make sure i get the numbers right. it was 54. before i explain that, i want to introduce to do all of my grand daughters, lisa and linda. [applause] >> i got a couple of days off this weekend. we had a wedding, and their older sister got married, and it was on saturday night at the rehearsal dinner was on friday night.
grandparents are supposed to be at the rehearsal dinner, but this guy, i think his name is jay leno, he talked me into going out there. the family was very happy. they watched it, so they did not hold it against me for not being there. anyway, we add a big weekend, and we are delighted to be here tonight. thank you for coming. the story of a meeting my wife is a little bit different. my first date with her was on her birthday. she was 4 years old. that is incorrect. it was her fourth birthday. she was born on leaker. was her 16th birthday, and we were in high school together. -- on we year. it was 16th birthday. we were in high school together. it was a dance where the girls had to ask the boys.
i tell people, leap year, you only have to buy presents every four years, but i was straightened out very quickly on that. [laughter] >> we were married my senior year at college, and daniel ek that time i was going to medical school. -- and i knew at that time i was going to medical school. i kid that i've worked my way through college, and she worked my way through medical school. >> this year, the deficit is $1.70 trillion, and the deficit is now $15 trillion. you'll unveiled a dramatic plan to balance the budget in three years. in the first year if you cut $1 trillion. why're you so sure deep cuts will help the economy? >> because government spends too much money, and one government spends money they have a tendency to waste it.
there is a difference between government spending money and people spending their money. liberal economists preached that it makes no difference. if the people will not spend money, the carmen has to, and they use this silly argument -- -- the government has to, and they use this silly argument. even if the government put a hole in the ground, and paid another group to fill up the whole, it would be productive. common sense tells you that could not be productive. if the parliament does not spend the money, it will come out -- but if the government does not spend the money, it will come out of the people. debt is a big problem. the debt burden is a real problem the whole world faces, and comes as a consequence of the monetary system. if you did not have the monetary system we had today were governments can spend money, and
cannot tax enough whorl enough, but then they print this money, so it encourages a lot of debt. finally, you cannot spend any more money. the debt is too big. interest rates are so low that you cannot lower interest rates and everything the government does does not restore the confidence because of the debt burden. if an individual or a business gets into so much debt that they cannot get their business to grow any more because they spend all their time paying the debt and keeping up, the only way they can get growth again is to get rid of their debt. some people liquidate the debt by going bankrupt. other people will say i've gone too far. i've to many credits cards , houses, cars and a change their way. when the debt is liquidated,
they can have growth and have economic growth. governments do not want to do that because politically there is a little bit of annoyance. generally, the people do not want anything cut, and therefore politicians do not want to cut. they keep spending and spending until we get to the point where we are today, and it is just unbearable, and still, today, in washington, the biggest problem there is even though they're hearing the message from people like you that spending is too big, the deficit is too big, there is no serious effort to do anything about it. they give lip service to it, talking about the congress should do this, and if we do not do that, they have a super committee. even in the proposals they talk about, they're not touching on cutting anything. the super committee, if we did
not pass a budget, the super committee was supposed to meet, and if they did not come up with it, there would be an automatic cut of $1.50 trillion over 10 years, but none of it would start until 2013, and the amount of money that would be cut over 10 years would be not even enough to cover the debt. every month we run up $100 billion of debt, so it does not even touch it. they're not serious about it. that is why i introduced this program to emphasize the point they you cannot keep promising people we're going to spend money and deficits do not matter. we have to cut. i try to do it with a plan that does not put people out on the streets. people that have gone very dependent on government, even though they should not have gotten that way, -- the elderly, there are many people dependent, and you can still work your way out of it is the
country would change our attitude about what the ultimate goal of government is. the goal should be very limited, protect your freedoms. [applause] >> the big problem is i tried to come up with cuts to balance the budget in one year, but most of the cuts come in the first year. $1 trillion in one year, but we need to have a changed attitude about what we should be doing as a country and a government. where it should be the easiest is going after overseas spending. i would cut $500 billion from overseas spending. i am sick and tired of people like you been trained to be the policeman of the world and get involved all around the world. i would bring our troops home,
and get over and done with all of these wars. we could save a lot of money. [applause] >> the other savings comes from getting rid of five departments. that is a fair start. also, to go back to the budget levels of 2006. that would be the opposite of what they do in washington. they have baseline budgeting which guarantees this growth, and if they decrease the growth of the but they called it a cut. i would say that is too much deception. i would go back to almost all of the programs to 2006, and government in 2006 was not too small then. that is what would have to be done. if not, the consequence is so serious. and then that will continue to explode. the printing -- the debt will
continue to explode. the printing of money will continue to explode, you will have more inflation, no matter what the government does it will not work. we are up against it. the government keeps trying, but above the standard of living for so many people. the middle class is being diminished. the standard of living is going down. if people on social security, their prices are going up. if prices go up, you lose it all. we are only at the beginning of this. you cannot create trillions of dollars and think that will not have an effect. so far it has been minimal, and it will get worse. i am convinced you have to cut spending. i do not see this as a sacrifice. people who have gotten the bailouts, they might have to sacrifice because i'm tired of having to bail out people. if you get more of your freedoms back, and my goal was to get rid
of the income tax. that would not be a sacrifice that i think that would be a good thing for everybody. budget sacrifice. i think that would be a good thing for everybody. [applause] >> if there were less interference from the governments in our personal lives, and stopping of these wars, to me, that is not sacrifice. that is coming around to common- sense. fortunately, the american people are coming in this direction, realizing how serious it is, and the long beyond people are leading the charge, and i like that, to -- and the young people are leading the charge, and i like that, too. [applause] >> thank you. you touched on military intervention. you are a veteran in the air force. given your experience, would you make sure would you do to make sure we have strong national defense budget what would you do to make sure we have strong national -- what would you do to
make sure we have strong national defense? >> it was proscribed that the states where not to be involved to have armies to provide the national defence. i think our defense is down and we spread ourselves so thinly around the world. we are in 130 countries, 900 bases. it is an economic burden. you have to remember a rather recent empire that bit the dust was the soviet empire, and they were so foolish they went into afghanistan and had a war. it is the economic consequence of foreign policy, but it also creates problems for us. how does having troops all around the world actually defend us here, and more precisely, we of lost lives and a lot of money worrying about where the boundary is between afghanistan
and pakistan. at the same time, we do not worry enough about our own borders around here. [laughter] [applause] >> so i think our defense is diminished. when i am proud of is the fact of the military has been very supportive what i am proud of is the fact the military has been supportive for all our campaign. if we get over twice as much money from active military people than all the other candidates put together. that means the military is looking at what i am talking about, and they do not feel excited about what is going on. it would be nice to say maybe they are turning the corner, we'll come home from iraq, and that war is over. i do not think that could be reported. that is not my assessment. the troops came out. the embassies there, 17,000 contractors will be in that embassy.
we are not changed our policy. if we're having a strong national defense, we have to have a different policy designed to defend this country, not to pretend we can police the world, and not that we can buy friends either by foreign aid, or force them to be our friends by taking them over, and installing dictators. we have been doing it for a long time. it has not been good for us. if we want a strong national defense, we have to change the policy. the move right now is that since the cold war ended, the declaration was that we have to spread exceptional was around the world. therefore, we have this obligation to tell everyone around -- to live like we do. the trouble is when they have elections and they do not elect the people we want, if we ignore them or throw them out of
office, and sometimes we still -- this antagonizes national defence when we support dictators in saudi arabia. there is a lot of resentment for us from that. i happen to think our country is exceptional, but i do not believe if we are a good country and we have exceptional values that you spread them either by bribing people or bombing people. we should set a good example where people would want to emulate us. we should a peace and prosperity and say the americans are doing it right. that is the only way i think we can spread our exceptionalism. [applause] >> thank you. one final question from me before we move to the audience, how do you compare the european debt crisis to our own debt crisis? >> the european debt crisis is
very, very dangerous, and they will have to have a climactic end before we will, but it is all intertwined. in 1971, the last link of our dollar to gold was severed. it meant that we as americans could print dollars as if they were bold and the world, unbelievably, kept accepting them and they still bank and bud their monetary system on our dollars. all these years we have had benefit from this, where the best export is paper money. it is not a good deal because our jobs go overseas, too, and it seems like a good deal to import money and products. because they prop up their currencies around the world, they are in big trouble. the world is still trusting the
dollar and we are on the verge of bailing out europe. the european union has only been around for 10 years and it looks like it is in big trouble. bernanke and the rest of them, we will bail them out like it was in 2008. if you do not bail out the banks, it will be the end of the world. they build up fear. they do that in foreign policy as well as economic policy to get people frightful so they go along with what they want to do. right now the course is we will bail out europe. the only thing that will stop that -- they will continue to do that until they lose confidence. if they pull it off where they can hide things over and we give them a couple more trillion dollars, it puts more and more pressure on us until the world will reject the dollar, because
if this could work forever, americans would not have to work again. we could just print money. that is not the way economics works. this past week i was looking at how much foreigners are holding our debt, and whether it is a trend, i do not know, but there was a big drop of that foreigners were holding this year. they will quit biting our debt and that will push interest rates up. what is happening in europe is important right now, try to prop got a system that is unworkable. it cannot work. >> thank you. we will now open up the discussions to your questions, and we encourage questions to come from undecided voters. this is a great opportunity to ask your questions of dr. paul . >> hi, dr. paul.
my name is hannah. 25% of the country does not identify with any particular religion to. i understand york freedom of religion. would you support any legislation that is religiously motivated, but cannot be sanctioned because of secular reasons? >> it depends on what you are talking to because somebody might encourage you to murder somebody because of religion. when it comes to regulation, there's nothing the government should be involved in. the first amendment is clear, congress shall write no laws establishing -- dealing with the
establishment of religion. there should be no preconditions -- prohibitions. basically in religion we do a pretty good job. i bet there are a lot of different values in this room and some who do not want any. that is what we have been provided. the government should not make those decisions. when -- we are tolerant encore our intellectual -- we're tolerant on our intellectual lives. we still have books on communism, and we did not prevent people from doing it. we rarely apply that principle to personal lifestyles, personal habits, because they are afraid, some habits might not be good and we have to watch them. they might drink or smoke too much. they do not give people the same
type of protection. the federal government should not be involved in regulating anything with religious values and they should not be involved in intellectual matters, but i do not think they should be doing it in personal habits either. people say they might go out and gamble. if you legalize religious choices, that does not mean we endorse it. i want everybody to make their own chores as as long as they do not hurt anybody. what you do with your personal library some with their own habits, i cannot endorse what you do. this is why freedom is so miraculously. all of a sudden people who have different values, intellectual interests, and personal habits, people come together because what we want to protect his the people -- principle of liberty. that is what made our country
great. something happened along the way because we do not have a concise understanding of what freedom is about. some people are better on personal liberties and religious liberties and at the same time another group will be better on economic liberties. it should be one and the same. if you ever write your life and your liberties, you ought to defend personal liberties as equal to economic liberties. that is one of my goals, trying to bring people together. the government should not be right thing lost on bridgett -- on regulation of religious values -- the federal government should not be right thing -- writing regulation of religious ideas. >> you said you would not use the executive order unless you had to, one of the things that you lack support of.
i am wondering what all the unconstitutional laws and bills that have been passed, would you consider using it to undo that they have done it? -- they have done? if not, is there some way out of this mess? >> there is a lot of the 30 president can do it on wind this. for instance the executive orders that had been abused. orders should be used properly for the president to do his prescribed duties. you write an order and say it is time to bring the troops home, the president can do that. that is ok. in the exec that were written by a previous president which is nothing more than legislation, yes, my belief is i could write an executive order and cancel out that executive order. also, what about regulation of
the executive branch where does the executive branch get this privilege to writing law? all regulations are unconstitutional, too. that is a line-item veto which the president does not have. you do with those if you think it is good but you do not want to endorse something he considered bad, you should veto the bill there is whole lot to do. other times you would have to work with congress, but that is a handful. you would have a lot of things he could do using that executive power in a proper manner.
>> thank you so much for taking my question. health care -- 32% of children in the united states are on medicaid and another 2% are uninsured. you have offered charity by doctors as a solution. the you think that 43% of america's children would be careful or through charity? >> see is asking about what i am talking about, so many people being dependent on medical care. i deal with that in the budget, i want to cut all the spending, but want to preserve certain programs. that does not mean i thought it
was a great idea because this is why we are in a mess because social security has no money in the bank. it will take a lot of work cutting and working our way out of this. when i got out of medical school in 1961, i practiced for a couple years before there was medicaid. i worked in a catholic hospital and made hardly any money. nobody was turned away. back in those days people were not lying in the street with no medical care. doctors always charged the least. with government coming in, these programs, they're totally bankrupt, everybody charges the most. from the doctors to the labs to hospitals, babies are put on the welfare rolls and parents alike and because hospitals need the money because costs are going up, it is a real mess.
as far as i'm concerned it has been created by the government. i would try to work out of this, but i would want a transition, so some of you, if you see this is not the way, i cannot be dependent on the government, i want to promote these medical savings accounts so people can put their money aside and get it off their taxes and buy their insurance and pay cash to the doctor. you need to get that doctor- patient relationship back again. it is a problem because there is a dependency, but as the economy gets worse, that it gets worse. if he took the food stamp issue, it was not too long ago 40 million people on food stamps. later on, somebody said it was 44 million. what we have created is a catch 22. the worst things -- the worst things get, medical care, for instance, our country gets p
oorer. i'm convinced we can do it and we can work it our way, but i am not overly confident in the way we are going. the calamity is we care about anybody, we have to avoid this major crisis where 2008 is going to look rather minor. why in the world can we agree at least on the changing attitudes about spending this money overseas and takes of these problems at home? [unintelligible] when? right now? this minute? i described having a transition, and those funds and my budget takes care of them.
they will get taken care of. when we have a free society, how will it be taken care of how did the country survive before 1965? maybe we talk too much. when i worked in alabama in 1962, i worked at $3 per hour. now you pay more than that, don't you, to see a doctor? the cost goes up because the government is involved. when you destroy the value of money, prices go more up in the area where the government gets involved in. prices exploded in housing, and their need to be an adjustment. the price skyrockets and young people cannot pay it. a graduate with a trillion
dollars worth of debt and no jobs. the price goes up and it is difficult for it happened. for people to make this, i know the problem. we had these legal problems were doctors overorde becauser of litigation. it is because of inflation and doing away with competition. we need more competition in madison. edicine.diso whether a republican program for for certain health care, who does lobbying? to keep you think lobbied? drug companies. you have a sincere instincts and your question reveals a.
how are we calling to take care of it? been in medicine, if you are a humanitarian, want to care about people, you need to free up the system and how limited government will provide more for people than doing it through the government. when a country destroys its currency, one of the characteristics is you wipe out the middle class. money goes from the middle class to the wealthy. what is happening today? the middle class is getting smaller, the wall street people are getting bailouts. they spend it and circulate it and prices go up and you cannot afford medical care. i believe one of the shortcomings of libertarianism is we have never expressed ourselves on this point, because it sounds like you are cold
hearted, you cannot care about people, the government does not want to take care of them. t?o is the government approve this is the wonderful thing about america. we have the best experiment in the history of the world, the largest middle-class ever, the greatest prosperity going down the tubes. we are going to witness this integration of it unless we do something about it will soon. -- we are going to witness this disintegration of it unless we do something about it real in. , with the death of the north korean president, will you remove our troops from the region?
>> sure. i do not think the new guy is gone to be in the game. he did not look like he has whole lot talent to me. this might be a wonderful opportunity, the world is changing. there's a new leader out there. the south koreans 20 times the gdp of north korea. what are you doing over there? i would bring them home from south korea. i would bring them home from japan, germany, the middle east, and we would be strongly for it. great nations cannot get defeated militarily. they get defeated from bad economic policies. liberties are more destroyed by
peoples of governments more so than somebody in haiti. i fear the loss of my personal liberty more by the government then i do by somebody invading our country and starting to regulate it. i would bring them home. the sooner the better. >> hi, dr. paul. my question is regarding the jones act, which is to protect cargo coming in and out of the united states and protecting jobs for american sailors. it has created middle-class jobs. we see in other industries where i.t. jobs are getting shipped overseas, and you can list all kinds of jobs shift overseas. do you support the jones act and
would you create something to be essentially shore up more jobs stateside? the jonesout rereading act, and we have ships coming in my district, and they complain about it all the time. it has a lot of unintended consequences and interferes with the marketplace. unless there is something very necessary, i have had the position that i would repeal most of it, if not all that, because i think we would be better off for that. we're supposed to protect american jobs, but it chases and a lot of vessels away, and it is complicated. i cannot remember what happens, but if you are in new orleans, you cannot stop in galveston. s -- itppens is the ship's
does not enhance the market so i would be for repealing most of it if not all that. -- of it. >> a couple of years ago we had a bad ice storm up here, and around halloween we had another snowstorm. i was without power for a while. i really wondered why our companies did absolutely nothing to do preventive maintenance to stop this at a time. it was not until i talked to somebody who worked in the industry, and they said, why would they do preventive maintenance? happens is we have a big storm, all the power lines go down,
transformers exploding, and then fema comes in and pays for new transformers and pays for overtime and everything. the end result is we as taxpayers pay a lot of money and we get a service that is actually worse off than had we not paid those tax dollars and the first place. how do we stop this insanity? how do we fight against this when your opponents are going to stand up and call you heartless and uninformed voters are on to say ron paul does not care about storm people. how do we stop this? >> i have heard all those stories about fema, but that one is new. that is a great example. i know a lot about fema from a practical viewpoint because i have 200 miles of coastline in
cast -- in texas, and we get hurricanes frequently. i was first elected in 1976, and i always argued against fema, bad economic policies. why fix it when i get the government to do it. on the coast, what it gets you to do, if you do not go along with fema and the flood insurance, they say you do not care about the people and what is on the happened. it is dangerous. if it is dangerous, why should we dump it on the taxpayer?
we encourage people to build in the wrong places. they should say they take a rest, i will build my house better or pay more for insurance, but instead there people in houston who have had their houses flooded up to four different times. they rebuilt them over and over, and the unintended consequences, when the government gets involved. i won this argument in my district because i think a strong stand on it, i vote against it, but when the hurricane comes in and the program is there and we have had to pay into it, most of the complaints are about fema. i go to bat for them, because fema is holding things up. fema becomes the dictator. there was one flood where fema was keeping out the red cross. they take over with the
department of homeland security all the police activity. katrina was a disaster. they started confiscating guns. there is no constitutional authority for the government to be doing this now matter how well intended. it has not been around that long and it teaches people to take risks they should not take. interesting story. glad to hear that one. [applause] >> i like a lot of what you say, but i like a lot of what politicians say. the question i had for you is the same for everyone this year. how are you going to get congress to work with you? i am so sick of bipartisan this and bipartisan that. if you belong to a party, how
hard you want to get congress to do what you say we need to do? >> it is the key question, and i will start by saying something because i want to challenge you. my challenge is we got into this mess because we had too much bipartisanship. the right and left get together and they want to spend money. liberals and conservatives it together and say we will tax people, borrow, the federal reserve will print money, and we will get away with it. i demonstrated in medicine, republicans and democrats, they let lobbyists control them. we still need an effort, a bipartisan effort. it should be dealt not by getting them to come over, but
you giving half your promises awake. why don't we bring people together as collations. this is where i have worked for so long because i am pretty independent. that is why i like new hampshire. i understand there are a lot independents in new hampshire. it means he can appeal to independents, liberals on civil liberties, and there are conservatives who think we do too much overseas. you bring them together. been collected will bring like minded people in. the attitude will change. if we ever get to this point where you have the right kind of president and you need to bring people together, you can say, this is a secret, don't let it out, turn off the cameras. a lot of people in washington did not have a whole lot of principles. [laughter] [applause]
that is the way the world works. therefore, they respond to you. if they think their job is in jeopardy, if they do not do what you want, and this is why the occupy movement, tea party movement, there is not enough out there to bring about the changes. ultimately government is a reflection of the people, and the people are a reflection of the prevailing philosophic attitude. seven years, most of us have sian economics.newsian in the meantime you want to work and bring coalition together and a president's vetoing a bill,
the only half to get 1/3 of the congress to maintain your veto. it is a state mel -- it is a stalemate, because they did not admit spending is a problem. they can live service and if they thought it was one half or one-tenth as serious as i did, they would be cutting instead of this deception they are panning off on the people. >> this will be the last question. maybe we're done. [unintelligible] >> we need a mike. >> hello, my name is alex, and i
am alarmed by the national defense authorization act. i would like to have your thoughts in this and like to know if your thoughts are aligned with my fear on this. >> i am pleased to get questions like this because my complaint is this stuff goes through and nobody knows about it, so when somebody knows about, i think .hat is fantastic trick they were asking me what i saw in the paper about the most important event in the 20th century was, or last year, the biggest news story. it was bin laden being killed, by what you are talking about significant. in the house they were teen hearing -- tinkering with a law
that was signed after 9/11, going after al qaeda. going aftered into terrorists around the world, gross distortion of that authority. some of us wanted to eliminate the authority because bin laden is down and they have abused it. they put in the house, they not only had al qaeda, but the ad in the taliban. the taliban are people not making claims to come here. they are motivated to keep people out of their country. our current government right now is starting to talk to the taliban. what was changed in the house they said any by the associated with forces, a seceded forces
means if you happen to visit a weapons the site that is current traversal, or maybe i attended a mosque and somebody in that moscow was a bad guy and you were associated -- would be subject to being arrested. when the senate got it, they said they could be arrested by the military. military, and taken in, and some of the senator's bragg, when we get one of those guys and they asked for a lawyer, they say, no lawyer for you. these are just suspects. this is on top of last february when the president announced as a national policy that the president is allowed to assassinate american citizens without charges being made. what about al alaki's sone?
-- son? he was the second target. we did not know he was so young. this was really bad. it got past this week. the senate made it worse. there was a chance of stopping it, and the president was anxious that it. that is very dangerous. wii essentially repeal our bill of rights. the patriot act, which should never have been passed, repeal the fourth amendment. this is essentially repealed the fifth amendment. the ideas of freedom developed slowly, and they were trying to establish these crystals with a bag that kara -- to establish
that easy in washington. if they really get out of hand, the congress can throw a person out, but who are they going to throw out when they are all guilty? not all. [applause] >> we are trying to wrap this up, and we try to keep it as orderly as you possibly can, recognizing there are a lot of supporters here. what we would like to do, if the congress is going to be -- the congressman is gone to be available for pictures. just pictures tonight, no autographs. hang a right and go down to that exit.
give us a chance to get to the back. >> are we going this way or that? [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hear what the candidates are saying at the new campaign 2012 c-span.org website. >> the vast majority of these programs are operated by the state governments. they are state functions. the federal government thinks they have a role to play in something where the states have a function. >> wind, solar, whenever it may
be, the federal government does not to be in the business of picking winners or losers in this industry. >> the president is an explainer in chief. >> read the latest comments c- span.org/campaign2012. with the iowa caucus and the new hampshire primary next month, c- span looks at man who had a long-lasting impact on american politics. tonight, william jennings bryant. friday, charles evans hughes.
saturday, owls milk -- al smith and wendell wilkie. >> earlier today the house held a pro forma session. steny or your sought recognition to ask the house to take up the senate's payroll tax bill. the chair did not recognize mr. hoyer. instead, he gaveled the house out of session. cable satellite corp. 2011] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 21, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable michael g. fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend michael wilker, lutheran church of the reformation, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray.
gracious god, you give us light in the darkness. we praise you for the galaxies, stars, planets, and moon that shine in the night. we bless you for lamps and candles that ill lieu min our communities. we thank you for the fires that warm our homes and energize our work. we repent for the ways we pollute the beauty of the night, the ways we extinguish the light of companionship, the ways we fail to share your warmth. enlighten our darkness. be the day spring for those suffering from addiction and illness. be the bright morning star for those who are grieving. be the sun of justice for those living under oppression and in poverty. be the cleansing fire for those who survive violence and warfare. traveling send us with your
light to share with friends and strangers. welcoming light our gatherings with your love. searching for justice and peace , light our way. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. 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: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday -- >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, we would like to ask unanimous consent that we bring up the
bill to extend the tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the floor, mr. speaker. you're walking out. you're walking away just as so many republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers. the unemployed. and very frankly as well from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens. we regret, mr. speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country. and that is the continuation of the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those that risk of losing them, and the continuation of access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for their health. and i am pleased to yield to my friend, mr. van hollen.
>> the chair did not recognize representative steny we're. the tv gallery and that the feed from the floor. c-span does not have control of those cameras. mr. hoyer spoke about the payroll tax cut for another 23 minutes. >> good morning. mr. van holland and i have just participated on the floor of the house and sought to seek recognition so we could ask unanimous consent to placed on
the four and to pass legislation which would give certainty and assurance to seniors, to the unemployed, and to 160 million americans who are at risk of losing their tax cut on january 1. the ability to have that certainty, that confidence, not just at this holiday period, but in january and february, while we take action to try to come to an agreement on the one-year extension that we want. unfortunately, as has happened so often the acting speaker, republican presiding officer, walked out. this is unfortunate.
the speaker has indicated he is ready to go to confidence. he may, it's similar to the speakers that the middle-class tax cut is a gimmick. the middle class does not believe that. they do not believe it is a gimmick to reject having the wealthiest in america pay some additional small increments so that this bill could have passed in the senate months ago. i regret the republicans who say they are here to work -- we were on the floor to do our work. they walked out. now want heald to mr. van is the ranking member
of the budget committee. >> thank you, and as you saw, the presiding officer brought that house into session and immediately gaveled it to a close before giving us an opportunity to ask for unanimous consent to take up a bill identical to the senate bipartisan compromise bill to extend payroll tax cut. the speaker of the house and the republican leadership or a wall -- were awol on the floor of the house today. you can walk down bohol way, entered the chamber, and into an agreement to take up the bill, the identical house version. if we could vote on this today, we would get the same result that they received in the senate the other day. by the end of today, we could
have a bill on the president's desk that would make sure 160 million americans would receive the continuation of a tax cut, make sure americans looking for a job i cannot find one has the unemployment insurance, and make sure millions of americans will still be assured their doctors will be paid. these are medicare patients, that they will make sure their doctors will be available because they will be receiving a payment under the medicare system, full payment. it is a real tragedy that the house republican leadership did not show up today on the floor of the house of representatives, because had they been there, they could have entered into this unanimous consent agreement that mr. hoyer mansion, and at the end of the day could have been on the president desk.
they may be somewhere in the capitol, but they are not on the house floor. we will be here every day, waiting for them to come to the floor of the house to take up this legislation so we can get it done. [unintelligible] >> they were here every single day, so why aren't cured democrats here today? >> your premise that it democrats would not be here is wrong. we were there to ask that the house take up a unanimous consent request. they walked out on us. they were not on the floor. the acting speaker on the floor walked out. whorf importantly, they walked out yesterday when we were all here.
they walked out on 89 senators, 39 republicans. senator brown, senator mccain, journal" street all of them, senator snowe, senator lugar, said pass this bill and do what we did all the time, what families to all the time -- when you cannot get an agreement that you need to get an agreement on, but want to continue in place the existing situation, you make a short-term agreement. we will do this for a little while, but let's decide what we will do on the long term. that's what the senate did. house republican leadership knows they could not get agreement, so they walked out yesterday with all this here, ready to do our work without giving us the opportunity to vote on the senate product that
overwhelming bipartisan support. >> we have had situations where there have been pro forma sessions. i have never seen anybody get recognized during one of these. did you guys genuinely think you would get recognized? >> i cannot remember a time when 160 million americans were adversely affected by the actions that we took yesterday, where 160 million americans are uncertain as to whether or not their tax cut is going to continue on january 1, where 48 million seniors are going to be lacking confidence their doctors will be available to them because they are not on to be compensated properly, as everybody agrees they should
be, and 3 million americans will lose their unemployment insurance. i cannot remember a similar situation. what is happening is republicans have taken hostage those 160 million people. they've taken hostage of this 48 million people. they've taken hostage of those 3 million people so it will be done their way or the highway. [unintelligible] in my heart of hearts and my experience in the past and my understanding -- and you have heard me read the list of how many times they have walked away -- i was not surprised they walked away from resolving this issue on behalf of the american people. >> the end of the year and we are back in crisis mode you have said this is a congress that has lurched from crisis to crisis.
>> boehner said this is what you get when you get divided government. >> i'm glad you asked that question. one of the lesson difficult votes we have cast is when president bush was president, and we had a deeply falling economy and a financial crisis, and president bush came to the democratic leadership of the house and the senate and said we have a crisis, and we are going to go into a deep depression if he did not act. 2/3 up preston busch's party, just as they did yesterday, walked out, as they did on america. democrats stood with president bush because we thought the country was in crisis, and we acted, and as a result of that action, which avoided a depression. unfortunately, we still have a stillrecession that we are
pulling ourselves out. the fact of the matter is we have been their time and time again to act in a bipartisan fashion to make sure this government and this country remains stable and successful. >> the other point is they were not divided in the senate. even at 80% of the republican senators' support this payroll tax cut. the real question is, why is it that the house republicans are so divided from the senate republicans and the senate democrats in terms of getting something done? that is the question facing the house of representatives, and the answer is pretty clear from the last couple days, which is you have an extreme right-wing element in the house of representatives that has hijacked the process, and that is why they refused to even bring up a bipartisan senate bill for an up or down vote
because they were afraid they would get the same bipartisan result in house as they got in the senate. they are afraid of bipartisanship. the reason is because they have this right wing elements. let's also remember that the house republican leadership was opposed to a payroll tax cut. two months, six months, one year -- their record is full of statements where they were opposed it. their action the other day, by refusing to set up a compromise bill, was in fact intended to accomplish what they had wanted to accomplish from the beginning, which is that no payroll tax cut. the reason mr. hoyer and i went to the well today is to give them an opportunity to do that. they could have come down to the, entered into the unanimous consent agreement to take up
this bill, which is identical to the senate compromise bill, and we could have gotten the stand today. the american people could have gone to sleep tonight knowing january 1 they would have a payroll tax cut, the unemployed americans with the they could still put food on the table, and doctors to be assured they would continue to be paid for the medicare patients they see. >> let me just add -- [unintelligible] >> there is a bipartisan agreement. the bipartisan agreement was voted on overwhelmingly by democrats and republicans in the senate. it was a republican leadership in the senate -- let's remember the republican leadership in the senate blocked the vote on a house built in the senate. >> let me add to your question, and then i will say something
about conferees. not only is there an agreement by the majority of the senate, the american public overwhelmingly agrees. the polls show they think we ought to get this done. it is not that the tea party controlled conference over here disagrees with the senate. they're not representing the views of the american people. i pointed out team used the conferees that had been appointed by speaker boehner have all of closed at one point in time or another extension of the tax cut. this is a device, a gimmick, a political issue rate, if you will, to pretend support for something that they had historically over the last year opposed. >> you were saying democrats said they want to let the state
and here. [unintelligible] with all respect, this is the second post-show we have attended in the last hour. why is it that you are still [unintelligible] >> with all respect your premise of dog and pony show -- this is democracy. we are saying we believe we ought to pass what the senate -- no dog and pony show -- overwhelming bipartisan support. [unintelligible] all of this seems like game playing. >> are not playing a game. we're prepared to help thave ths
bill come back and pass it and send it to the president. that is not a game. none of the 160 million americans think this is a game. none of the 48 million americans think this is a game. none of the people on unemployment think this is a game. this is not a game that. why are you all here? why are we able to communicate this to the american people? we went to the floor, this be to the american people, and to the members of the house. unfortunately, the speaker walked off, not speaker boehner, speaker pro tem walked off the floor, shot off the cameras, they wanted to shut us down. we are here on very serious business -- no game. that is what senator mccain was talking about. that is what senator brown is talking about.
that is what senator olympia snowe is talking about. that is what senator lugar is talking about. they are talking about get this work done, and unfortunately i can name you 12 instances that i have on a list here where the republicans have walked away from solving serious problems. this is not a demon. -- a game. thank you. [unintelligible] >> john boehner gathered with fellow republicans today chosen to negotiate today on a payroll tax cut legislation tricks harry reid has refused to appoint his own negotiators. this is 10 minutes.
>> good morning, everyone. mr. de the house voted to reject the senate bill and as for conference where we can resolve the differences between the two houses. i have appointed the eight men and women sitting here to be our negotiators. we are here, ready to go to work, and we are hoping senate democrats will appoint negotiators, come to the table, and resolve these differences. it is important to note that the president, the bipartisan leaders in the house and the senate have all asked for the same thing over the course of the last several months. let's extend the payroll tax cut.
what we are asking for is to get the senate members over here to work with us to resolve arguments is so we can do what everybody wants us to do -- extend the payroll tax credit for the next year. >> good morning. the speaker said we are here in washington working today because we want to make sure that the middle-class and working families of this country have certainty their taxes will not for the next year. that is the only issue which we differ with the senate, and we are asking for the senate majority leader to appoint conferees to join us to try to finish the work for the american people before the end of the year. if you think about it, people are sitting there across the america, wondering what washington is doing. washington is doing.