tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 28, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
he budget agreement and the editor of popular mechanics discusses their story about the interval -- inner workings of koch industry, the private corporation that funds political activities of the koch brothers. ♪ good morning, everyone here is wednesday, october 28. lawmakers are slated to vote on that two-year, $80 billion budget deal brokered by leaders in congress and the white house. it is likely to pass a bipartisan vote and then sent to the senate for action over in that chamber. political reports it will be a political piñata at tonight's debate. here, we debate in colorado on cnbc.we begin this morning with changes will medicare security and
on this deal. we get your views. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a tweet, if you would like, @cspanwj, or join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan, or send us an e-mail, email@example.com. your thoughtst here in just a minute about your views on social security and medicare. in this two-year budget deal that was announced on monday, there were changes to social security and medicare. joining us on the phone is jonathan nicholson, a reporter with bloomberg bna. let's begin with social security, the disability program. what changes did they propose in this deal? guest: the thing to remember is social security has not just one trust fund, it is actually two. the problem is that the
disability insurance trust fund , not beed to run low able to pay full benefits with the amount of money coming in starting in 2016, so basically to forestall that, the proposal is kind of a two-step kind of thing. one is to reallocate some of the money that is going to the old age and survivors insurance fund havehree years and some of that go to prop up the disability insurance fund, which would keep it solvent until 2022, and the other is to make changes in some of the qualifications and antifraud provisions. so basically the idea would be to make -- to include medical experts for the states that do not currently include that when determining disability, but also number ofthe investigations that are going on
for antifraud, to increase in penalties involved with fraud for insurance, and then also to for it less of a cash cliff people who currently receive workility when they get and earn more, so it is not a straight drop off but more of a gentle easing off of disability benefits as they returned to working on more money. what if this mean for future beneficiaries of social security disability insurance? in about 20hose states that do not currently use medical experts and the determination process, it was been a change for them. according to the center on budget priorities, that has been going on for about 16 years as a pilot project. they will return to the same process that other states use. but generally speaking, this is
seen as more of a nibbling around the edges in terms of reforms. larger reforms have been bandied about for the disability insurance program in recent years. there has been really not that much pushback that one might expect, say, from democrats who are generally very protective of entitlement programs, including social security. they were seen coming out of the conference yesterday, not terribly concerned about the impact this would have on that program. host: jonathan, there are two trust funds with social security, so let's talk about the other one. is that change dealt with at all in that two-year budget deal? best: yes, some of that will distributed instead to prop up the disability insurance fund, old age and
survivors insurance fund is considered to be the healthier of the two funds, so that would immediate impact. there is this issue of double counting in the sense of whether then drive down the solvency of that fund a little bit as well, but again, overall, the two programs are -- if you put the whole to trust ofds together, at least as last year, they were projected to be solvent until around 2033. talk aboutet's medicare. what does this deal say about medicare? guest: this is where it gets complex. [laughter] the bureau of labor statistics say there is little to no inflation last year, there is cost-of-living adjustment for social security beneficiaries.
there are a lot of medicare recipients who have their medicare essentially taken out of their social security checks. that is not ase, problem. there is a small subset, though, of medicare recipients who would face a problem in that their premium would go up, basically $160. about $105 to would behind in medicare beneficiaries, newer ones, or ones whose premiums are paid by medicaid. that would make it must to difficult. the idea here would be and said it 105, 160, to make a , and what they would do it would be
andlocating between funds, then in 2016, basically take a small degree of money, three dollars for some of those in the small group be effective, and have been sort of repay this loan, this kind of intergovernmental loan from one hand of the government through the other, basically, to smooth that out. now, they have also prepared because we are living in such a relatively low inflation world peace days, there is also language in here to allow the to happen in 2017 as well if again the federal statisticians find that there is no significant inflation and therefore again no cost-of-living increase. host: all right, jonathan nicholson. when will this vote take place today? guest: probably around noon. i think the republicans would like to get it done as maybe the swansong for house speaker john is slatedho of course
to resign at the end of the week from both his seat as well as from speakership, and of course this would allow for a clean slate for paul ryan, who is expected to easily win the party nomination later today, and then tomorrow to be voted on the floor as the new house speaker. host: real quickly, what is paul ryan's stance on this budget deal ? has done his best to try to distance himself from this in part because some of the more hard-core conservative and libertarian members of the republican caucus a) do not like the process by which this thing has gone up in terms of the way it was from a people basically monday morning, and here we are wednesday, you know, $80 billion over two years, and that they
wanted more, deeper reforms to these programs to manage spending if they were going to bust the budget caps, which were agreed to in 2011. host: jonathan nicholson, blodgett reporter, bloomberg bna caret thank you. let's get to your calls. jonathan nicholson laying out this two-year, 80 billion dollar budget deal. overall, what do you think about social security and medicare, or changes when you recommend. daniel in bloomington, indiana. thank you for waiting perio. caller: you are welcome. i am actually still welcome due to the republican county and the circumstances, i think these are good, and they have done a lot of good for people, but these are manipulated just like every other o appropriation and federal government.
three -- medical experimentation, money, independent, you can let those issues and the heavy hearts that when you have reforms to these programs, lifting the burden off of the ghastly benefits off the next iteration claiming opportunities in the united thet, i really think -- united states, i really think it is significant with john boehner's legacy in the house. there, he is aup boss' boss, and he really cares about the future of our people. you --aniel, let me stop you think because republicans are saying, we take a look at the conservative "washington times" this morning, the conservativesscal are told the alternative is worse. so these changes and republicans are saying for the first time in 30 years the changes have been made to social security, disability, and insurance fund, that this is big, that they got
this from democrats. do you agree? caller: they compromise again, and that is why vader is on his ehner is on his way out. i would do something to the funding stream it is something when people) -- retire, they do not just plug money into their homes. given to that 401(k), their kids, they go on vacations, they plug that money into the economy. if we can make the 401(k) a collaborative effort with the social security fund, with the interest rates, that gives our folks pretty much a buyback to retire at a rate, getting paid each month, if not higher. host: all right, dan, i'm going to a democrat. fred is in cherry hill, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you better and what is
your view of social security and medicare? caller: i think there is a change that should be made. -- host: and that is the cost-of-living adjustment, for those that do not know. caller: right. and mainly to because the price of gas is down. certainowed people at a point to stop driving, but there are a lot of other and this that keep going up -- other expenses that keep going up, especially medical expenses. -- his brother, who was a conservative senator from new york, who had a separate cost-of-living, so it takes into account medical expenses because they continue to go up, and health care premiums continue to
go up, and next year there will be no increase in many social security benefits. host: but you think it is a good thing that democrats were able to get from republicans a deal that makes sure that medicare premiums do not go up next year? they were looking at a 50% hike in medicare premiums. caller: mmm-hmm. yes, that is a good thing. people with policies that are meant to supplement medicare, those premiums are probably going to go up also, so people will be paying more for health care without an increase in their social security benefit. host: all right, charlotte, prattville, alabama. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: doing just fine heard what
are your thoughts on medicare and social security? -- are i want to know they cutting it for the people who worked all these years, and then they're making it now because the poverty level is so high? they have to have vehicles to go back and forth to the doctor. did a credit social security for these people who have worked all their lives? host: what are you referring to? this budget deal? yes, social security, and raising medicare on people -- host: right, no, charlotte, the changes.ude some fromwill take some funds the retirement trust fund to shore up this disability fund in the short term, and he said there is some concern with
double counting, but you will learn more about this debate and the concern that some have come especially on the democratic side, that people have on social security and medicare. listen in. of course, we will be covering in here on c-span, and we learned from jonathan of that vote what happened around you today to her that vote is taking place at the this morning behind closed doors for their first vote on who should be the next speaker. so they will be listening, it will be a listening session where they are going to hear from paul ryan as well as daniel webster, the two candidates for speaker, and the actual vote will take days later today. place later today. that is the set up for today. this morning, gop vote at 1:00 young, thursday, the full house, the vote on the floor at 9:00 a.m. east time. we will be leaving you early on youhington journal" to show
full gavel-to-gavel coverage. let's hear from john next in lexington, tennessee, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, ma'am, i want to make a comment, during the reagan years, the social security administration fund was the only solid program that they had, and republicans and democrats all molested its own funds, and now we have a bunch of iou's in there. default is default. if you do not do your job, you cannot blame the $18 trillion debt on the american people. the glass-steagall act not being in thed, the iou's social security system -- you cannot blame that on the american people. i believe if you put your 25 years, 30 years starting early pay social security, you should get full social security at city 5, 5070 years old and opened up the door for employment for
other people. 55, 57 years old, and open up the door for employment for other people. host: how old are you? caller: i will be 54 in december. host: when are you planning to retire? caller: i do not plan to retire. i will just work till i fall over. is impossible for me to think about -- i have had a gap in my employment here and there for reasons, and it is going to be impossible for me to think about -- i have got investments and things like that, but it would be impossible for me to ever retire. host: you are not thinking you will rely on social security? caller: no, no way. and what little bit would be there would not be very much for me for me to ever try to live off of. host: what have you done for a living over the years? caller: i am just a general
laborer. i have got a high school education, but i got a lot of then a lotrades, and of -- jack of all trades. but i have made a fair living. but the way the economy that i have got right now, i am making the same money as 20 years ago, and you can see expenses, utilities, gas, insurance -- has all triple. host: john, you're not alone. when you look at this gallup poll on social security, when you retire, how much you asked that to reliance social security? a major source of income, a minor source of income, or not at all, 48% said a minor source, 14% said not a source at all. lou, evansville, indiana, democrat. we are getting everyone's thoughts on social and medicare. welcome to the conversation. go ahead. caller: hi.
good morning. at our state here in indiana, i got injured on the job, and i was hitting -- i got injured at 62, and now i am 63. i do not plan on getting hurt. i actually talked to my employer but i wanted to go ahead, semiretired, retired at 62, and work part-time, but of course it did not work out that way because i got hurt. for me to get on social security disability commodity, like, nine which i do not have a problem with that, and i have a son that is on social security disability, he was hit by a drunk driver about 10 years ago, and it sent me three years to get him on social security disability. i did not have an attorney or nothing. host: it took you three years to get him on it? caller: at the time, they did is onok at him disability. now he is 25, and he is on it.
i's, i crossed my t's, and there are people that try to abuse the system and liberally get money that they do not deserve. it is gone from people like my son and other folks that really deserve this stability. yesterday wasring cutting our monthly income by 20% or something like that, so i guess they are not going to do that. maybe that will be a good thing. host: there is a cuts that could have been coming because of the disability fund being insolvent by next year. lou, what do you make of what republicans did here, these reforms, for eligibility, requiring that a medical doctor decide what is a disability and what is not? some of the states, as we have learned, do not have a provision. agree with it because when i was waiting to see the social security dr., there were people literally walking in to see the social security
physicians that you were assigned to an hour town, that would walk and for the most ridiculous uses. -- excuses. as one lady walked in and said, "well, i am overweight." another, i cannot figure out what was wrong with her very few get characters that think these doctors are stupid, and they are not stupid. see nine doctors myself. it was not easy. and when my son got on disability, he had to go through the same rigmarole. he had to see a couple of doctors, i had to get pronounced the the hospitals, from procedures, emergency room's, and all of that. so i agree with all of that because i did the right thing, and if you are honest and do the right thing, it will work out for you, but when you walk into the social security office and act like -- well, i do not feel like working anymore to get on disability, it is not right. until,lanning on working like the other fella said a moment ago, intel i dropped over.
and ied to work part-time worked at a nursing home, and i enjoyed taking care of those work 20nd i wanted to hours a week to keep working, but i do not plan on being in the situation i am in now. i agree that that needs to have tough standards. host: lou, i want others to listen to what steve sca lise, republican of indiana, majority whip in the house, here is what he had to say. [video clip] scalise: when you fast forward today, it is a plan that not only denied the president implement some important reforms for our country, and some of the things that our conference has been fighting for for a long time. if you start with the social security reforms, congress has not passed the reform to social security program since ronald reagan was president. there is a reason it has taken
over 30 years to get real reforms to a program that has real solvency problems. in the reforms in this program, especially as is related to disability, are very important, to make sure that seniors are cutscted from the kind of that could come from bankruptcy as well as people with disabilities that have been to keepg for reforms people from abusing in that program, from the double dipping antifraud in that program. the fact that it has taken over 30 years is very significant to orrengthening the program f people who use it and rely upon it. host: louisiana republican steve scalise yesterday, touting the reform that republicans wanted as part of the two-year budget deal. more on that when it comes to fraud. reports thatimes" it imposes a prison sentence of
up to five years for fraud, gives the social security administration new tools to verify someone's earnings are there areese reforms, still some in the republican party on the conservative wing who are not satisfied with that deal. rand paul, who was running for president in 2016, tweeting this out -- "i will fight this deal at every step and filibuster so the american people have a chance to say enough is enough." mark meadows, republican from kansas -- "anyone who supports the #budgetdeal is complicit in supporting the way things are in washington. i strongly opposed." then you have representative alan grayson, "cuts to social security and medicare benefits? h hell no!" is what the congressman has to say. they will vote today on the floor, and that it will move over to the senate. in case you're
interested in reading it before these lawmakers vote on it. by the way, "wall street journal " supporting us, saying "the best worst budget deal," the gop gets some disability reform. "washington post" also saying it is good, if not perfect. also, "usa today" editorial board -- "modest budget deal beats the alternative." california, independent third what are your thoughts on social security and medicare? caller: good morning. i've to subjects. one is about the disability. i worked for 26 years in radiology. i have been disabled all my life and never collected a check. and there is so much fraud going on in that disability part of think it's of i the lawyers -- i think if you
took the lawyers out of medicine, that we can stop the fraud. the second part is medicare. for years, i paid all my own bills for my medical. old now, and i am bedridden because of what has happened to me. when i have to go through all the appeals process with medicare and get down to the end sueind out that i have to the attorney general, secretary of health, and everybody to win my case, i cannot afford to do things like that. but i was surprised to know when i was in an accident that medicare was paying my bills. i thought an insurance company was paying my bills. so these rich insurance companies are paying fees to doctors and hospitals on medicare fees.
host: all right, bob, i will leave it there. --lup with this poll are you optimistic or , 20 years now,t the medicare program will still provide all americans over age 65 with adequate health care coverage? 43% are optimistic, 53% are pessimistic. carol, what do you think? caller: i think, for one day, they have not looked at the charges being leveled right now. they need an investigation on the insurance companies and what they are charging. and i do medicines, not have many, but one of them was $1000 -- my costs. $300 for another, my costs. that was after insurance paid. secondly, people $100,000 or over are not paying into social security.
why is that? that is absurd. they are still collecting. they say well, it is because they paid in. bull crap. they are getting something for nothing. and the little guy is still being charged, and he does not collect that much back, so where does that rational come from? that is all i need -- the arenses for medicare coming, a lot of it, from the insurance companies themselves, and nobody seems to check it -- nobody cares. why? carol,ll right, democrats, most of them, seem to be on board with this two-year budget deal. that is because democrats want to prevent medicare recipients from a historic spike in cost for doctors visits and lab tests. here is what harry reid had to say about this yesterday. [video clip] reid: protect seniors from
deep cuts, and protects from a 53% increase in medicare premiums. cut off the catastrophic default and extends that until march 2017, which is as good a victory over the loudest, most extreme voices in the republican party. passing it into law will be a victory for common sense for the middle class and also for how this body works. this is how we should be doing things. democrats and republicans working together to come up with something that is good for the country. this is a victory for the country. there are no political winners or losers in this, which is good for the country. host: harry reid yesterday approving this two-year budget deal. other democrats appear to agree.
senator dianne feinstein of california saying the budget agreement is much needed for our country. senator tim kaine of virginia "pleased congressional negotiators and the white house reached a bipartisan deal to avoid a debt crisis and provide two years of sequester relief." senator jack reed of rhode island, "i have called for sequestration relief for both dod and domestic agencies and need to avoid default." and senator angus king, "i look forward to reviewing deals of the budget deal, but the fact that we have an agreement is a significant that in the right direction." some of the reaction from those on capitol hill. we showed you earlier senator ran all said he will filibuster it when it comes over to the senate. the vote is being taken in the house today around noon. other actions up on capitol hill, yesterday the house of moved -- yesterday, the house approves to remove the x or import bank -- the export-import
bank. several dozen republicans executed a rarely used procedure to force a vote to reopen the bank for some modest reforms. once the mainstream conservatives got it for a vote, the majority of republicans that supported renewal of the bank pass on a vote of 313-118. but one, alan grayson, republican of florida, as we told you, running for senate, voted with republicans to renew it. all pain of the "washington post kane of the "washington post" wrote this --
host: there have been 20 but those causes ended upt: with the house leadership giving in and negotiating a way for the bill to come to the floor under normal procedures. watchers, you c-span yesterday by establishment watchers, not a conservative wing, i mentioned alan grayson, he was the lone democrat who did not support renewal of it. other news from capitol hill yesterday, jason chaffetz, chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, tweeting this out, "moments ago, we filed papers to impeach irs commissioner koskinan.
destruction of evidence and false statements under oath among the charges." this may be front page of the "washington times." they are accusing the commissioner of destroying evidence. here's a quick headline from the senatestreet journal" -- " measure."er roger is tennessee, a republican. we're talking about social security and medicare. what are your views of those programs? well, unfortunately, i was a general contractor. i am soon to be 59 years old. it for six i thought sixs -- i fought it for
years, doctors, back pain, numbness, neuropathy, i was on walkers, crutches, they sent me to paint bill clinton, tried to kill me -- they sent me to pain pill clinics, tried to kill me. when i finished all of this, going to the doctors because they will kill you. that guy who said he was a urologist and he paid his own bills -- well, if you knew the fraud that i know that these you would understand -- my disability check -- i 50not even afford to go miles to my sister who is also in tennessee because it is so low. when i am talking about i paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, corporate taxes and everything else. our government -- i ran a business for 30 years. i never had to hire illegal immigrants, and it would upset
my stomach if i had as high as 16 jobs, custom homes, if i did not have somebody on my job, and my reputable standing -- host: i want to update you all in a situation in south carolina. maybe you have seen the video of that officer throwing down that in the desk and dragging her. as the headline in the "new york times," toppled death points to race and discipline. headline from nbc news -- the sheriff shows a third student pledging the officer in the classroom. the fbi is investigating that, someone to come on that situation there. we will hear from milley in kingsport, tennessee. what you think of social security and medicare? caller: i think it is all he. they do not -- i think it is all a ripoff. they do not look out for the poor people at all.
when you try to live on social security, it is not enough money. i work part-time, they doubled takinge because they are medicare out of my social security check and my paycheck, and i just think it is a ripoff. all right, bob in california, republican, your view. heard that hasve been going on, which is a shock because i'm kind of out of touch, but a lot of people that come to this country, they have phony birth certificates made in other countries, they pay the officials off, and they come here and start collecting social security about 10 years early with phony birth certificates. i mentioned that to one of my friends, and he said yes, that is what my friend did, she comes from another country, and she gets social security early. and then i know people who work in the disability office, and they get all of their friends
disability, and then they go out and work at night, buying houses, remodeling houses, and they are just doing all this stuff. there is so much fraud in the system. i would not be surprised if it is all fraud. you're happy with these reforms that are included in this budget deal? they are going to beef up -- caller: well, it is fraud, and that is why we are going broke. host: all right, ahead of tonight's gop debate hosted by cnbc in colorado, 8:00 p.m. eastern time, by the way, the "new york times" with this headline that a new poll indicates a deep divide in the republican party. for the first time since the "times" and cbs news began testing purposes in july, they noted ben carson has replaced the donald trump as the leader of the larger of can
field, although the difference is well within the poll's margin of sampling error. host: as you know, who was ever at head was in the center of the debate. however, carson will not be standing at the front- runner's center like charger that honor will still go to trump, who has led the gop field for months -- host: so for tonight's debate, you can expect to hear questions and discussions about the debt ceiling, that is the big headline in the "new york times" this morning. it says that they said there have been 441 questions, according to one of the
moderators, who said somebody e-mailed me the other day and said there have been 441 questions in the presidential debate so far, and not one of them was about the debt ceiling, so they plan to ask about that. side, athe democratic new poll showing hillary clinton widening her lead over 41% in that state. that is post hearing on benghazi that took place last week and post the news of joe biden saying he is not going to run. let's go back to the republican field because there is this. in the "sun sentinel" out of florida, posted on their website last night, "marco rubio should resign, not rip us off." the paper that endorsed the senator in 2010 is now saying he should step down, and that a longtime friend told the "washington post" he hates his job. "hate" might be a
missedword, but he has -- he says he is mia from his job because he find it frustrating and wants to be president and said. he says we have got serious sorry, senator, but floridians and sent you to washington to do a job. we have got serious albums with clogged highways, eroding beaches, plus social security checks, and evil who want to shut down the government. that is the "sun sentinel" saying marco rubio should resign from the senate. either way, there are a few states that have "resigned to laws. arizona, florida, georgia, hawaii, texas. they note, though, that in florida, nothing contained in the subsection of this law
relates to persons holding any or seeking office of president or vice president. that is a little history for you on that. and also, as many of you know, kentucky gop changed its rules the summer to allow rand paul to run for senate and his white house bid. that is the "washington post" headline from august. there is a recent headline and political that says the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, has been pressing rand paul to focus on his senate bid. there are growing concerns of the kentucky junior senator is dividing his time between presidential and senate races. so back to your thoughts here and social security and medicare. gene in wisconsin, a democrat. go ahead. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: yes, good morning, greta. if we take the cap off of social security, i think it is 120,000, then you can quit paying into
social security, and would help a whole lot. that would really bring up the money. plus, all of this fraud and abuse -- i have heard a lot of people talk about it. my goodness. i have got a grandson that is in it will chair and he deserves it. that is against anybody not capable of working, but my understanding of the law is that you were not supposed to be able to work, and that some of these flimflamt such excuses. like one person i know has migraine headaches. believe me, i know how bad they are -- my wife gets them -- but still, that does her from going stopo work -- that don't her from going out to work everyday. i think if they got rid of this fraud and abuse and took that caps off, they would be able to and thelions of dollars
people that deserve it would not have to worry about being cut. int: ok, melissa pennsylvania, an independent. go ahead. only 34 years am old, unfortunately, and i am on social security disability. i have progressive m.s. i would love to work, i would love to be able to work, but i cannot. i wish i could, but i cannot. so i think it is very unfair to take any money away from somebody who paid in. i did not have time to pay in. i wish i had more time. i would be getting a they are checked. host: what was the process like to get on this disability? caller: it took me three years. i did not go through a lawyer. fortunately, my mom did all of my paperwork, and it took me three years to get visibility. host: did they tell you that
from the beginning that it takes years? caller: yes. everybody always told me that. i was denied twice, so -- i do not know why. [laughs] lesionsi have on my brain, so i do not know what i had to prove to them. host: that is melissa in pennsylvania. ryan in michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. my senator, sander levin, when i about the social security report earlier this 2007 censushe 655ng that there are only centurions in this country, but yet the social security department is making them pay on six and a half million people over 100 years old, so when i
asked my senator about that, he told me that is only 1% of it, and it is not really worth bothering with. so how can i -- when congress is $77 billion at is month they could be saving by cleaning up just the centurions. but when my congressman tells me it is not really worth getting out of bed for, how can i go for the reforms? brian, a republican in michigan. we will take a break. when we come back, we will representative mike pompeo of kansas, one of the 12 congressman who pressured secretary of state hillary clinton on what happened in benghazi, libya and 2012. later, we will talk to connecticut democrat john larson, member of the house ways and means committee, about this two-year budget deal. first, let me show you this headline from "wall street journal," the world news section -- "the u.s. looks to step up islamic state fight. "
it is coming from testimonial of ash carter before the senate armed services committee, and here he is laying out the revised strategy against isis. a little bit of that. [video clip] "r" isrter: the first raca, isis' hold. we have said we need to keep a hold on raca. indeed, some of them are within 30 miles of raca today. the syrian-era coalition, which we plan to strengthen, will work overtime with other syrian and isil forces. and to the south, we plan to strengthen jordan, and from the south, we intensify our air
campaign. we will target isil with higher, heavier rate of strikes. also, it's oil enterprise, which is a critical pillar of isil's financial infrastructure. as i said last friday, we have already begun to ramp up these deliver a. part of this pressure includes our new approach to the syrian trained in a equipped program. i, like president obama and others, were disappointed. sinceped this up and have changed it. we use the word "change," not "end" the program. while the old approach was to train and equip forces outside of syria, the new approach is to work with that it leaders of groups that are already fighting and provide equipment and
some training to them and support their operations. this approach builds on successes that local syrian, era, and syrian-kurdish forces have made along the border to retake and all ground from isil with the help from u.s. air strikes and re-equipment supplies here it is done in concert, as we intent, all these actions from the ground and from the air shall help shrink isil's territory into a smaller area and create more -- ultimately, denying the many safe haven and is suppose it -- in its suppose it safe haven. the second "r" is ramadi. our help to retake and hold ground from isil, and
in turn, to build momentum, we turn toward mosul. the government uses american-made f-16's, and have empowered capable people to step forward. we assemble capable and motivated iraqi forces, under baghdad's control, and including sunni elements, we are willing to continue to provide more enabling capabilities and firing support to help them succeed. iraqi government and security forces will have to take certain steps militarily to make sure our progress exists. host: if you want to hear more from the defense secretary about the revised strategy against we covered yesterday's entire hearing, so of course go to our website, c-span.org. you can watch it there. now is congressman mike pompeo, republican of kansas, he sits on the select committee of benghazi, part of
the 11-hour questioning of the former secretary of state last week. levy asked you, what did you learn from her last week that shows, that proved in any way that she was derelict in her led to the that death of four americans on september 11, 2012 guest. was a great, that question. there was a lot of attention thursday, but this committee has been hard at work trying to answer that question and many others since may of 2014, and while the media may stop covering as much as they did on thursday, i can assure you the committee is going to continue to do its job, which is to identify the failures that led to the death of these for americans, and attempt what if i things that went wrong that can be fixed. the hearing on thursday was part of the mosaic, so secretary
clinton was one of dozens and dozens of witnesses. we have many others to call. we learned a handful of things. there are pieces in the lead up, the run-up to symptom or 11, to september 11, 2012. the events of the evening, how the administration behaved, how the government behaved following the attacks. a good example is we have not had a chance to cumulatively identify all of the requests for security assistance, and now we know that totals more than 600. we can now for the first time confirmed that none of those, according to second-rate clinton's testimony, made it. -- according to secretary clinton's testimony, made it. she is supposed to be involved in security. we heard the secretary would personally get involved -- she did not. she said i rely on my
professionals. we have a lot of contacts about how secure he operated inside the state department. after that evening, we got fidelity that she trie chose not to call century of state canetti, she did not call -- secretary of state pa netta, she did not call others. is to develop facts. the list is long. we can see that she concluded arsonally that this was terrorist attack within several hours of the events. she wrote a family member. andspoke with libyans injections. she did not say of the father of war, she did not say it was confusing, she said we know that this was a terrorist attack, yet a week later, we had susan rice on tv, president obama goes on
"the view," and refuses to call terrorist attack. there is a long list. host: i am sure our viewers will give you questions about it. of those things you mentioned, are those evidence that she was derelict in her duty, and that led to the death of four americans? remember, that is not our mission. our mission is not to identify a person who is derelict or someone who is not -- our mission is very clear from the beginning -- it was to put in been a process, we have added an awfully long time, we can talk about mistakes, to put in place a process that satisfies the american people that all the facts have been covered, that we have developed a situation as fully as our committee is capable of doing, and then provide a set of solutions that can reduce the risk. that is our task. there was a lot of theater on thursday. i am not a theater god. i am a facts guy.
to identify those facts, lay them out in an orderly way for the american people in a final report -- we hope to do that before too terribly long, and insults across the political spectrum and across the world will draw their own conclusions, and hopefully we can keep folks alive when we next phase department officials and other members of u.s. government. host: the ranking democrat, elijah cummings, has said the four families asked all of you to find out what happened and what went wrong and who is at fault here. is that not the mission? guest: yes, ma'am. i am confident we will identify all of the players as best we can and what their actions workers you used the words "dereliction of duty." i have been very careful, as have my republican colleagues, not to prejudge anything.
we still have an awful long way to go in the investigation. we will identify those folks who acted in a certain way, and if we find those actions fell short and our judgment was appropriate, i think we will conclude that as well. but we cannot do any of that until we're done. host: the wealth we be listening -- host: who else we be questioning? who else we be talking to from the pentagon? guest: i'm confident that we will get secretary panetta from our committee. we will talk with other folks, we already have, from the cia. this is all of u.s. government trade i hope we can catch the folks from the white house who were involved in actions and the decision-making that night as well. the focus on secretary clinton and the state department i think is appropriate. she was the senior leader. i can assure the american people, it is not our sole focus. we're trying to understand the total u.s. government was once to the danger and let you the
events that night, and afterwards. host: and timeline for finishing up? guest: i cannot give you much of a clue on that because it is out of my control. now for a year and a half to get access to all of the materials to allow us to complete the process. 5000 pageseived over of ambassador stevens' own e-mail, the senior official on the ground in benghazi, libya that night, about three days before the hearing was secretary clinton. we still do not have the e-mails from patrick kennedy, the deputy secretary of state responsible for security. by the way, no committee, if i can talk about all the other work that other committees have done, no committee has that access to the information that tells you what he was doing, his decision-making process on how he thought about security at the process. i cannot tell you when it will be complete. it will be complete when we have
access to all of the materials and we have gotten as close as we can to completeness. i sure hope it is before too long. the american people deserve that report as quickly as we can get it done. host: phone lines are lighting up. a lot of our viewers are probably -- were probably tune into c-span3 last week. hi. pompeo, how are you doing? the reason i was calling was actually about medicare, but i will add my two cents, what i know about politics, and it seems anyone but us blue-collar or white-collar workers that made a big mistake and lied about it for a week and a half with people that died, my gosh, it is an ambassador, you know. it was very upsetting. it is still upsetting now. how do these people keep their jobs when they are lying to the american people? question,s take that
because it is one that came up during the 11 hours. aest: it is one that i sked. i ran a small business before i came to congress. it is in grounds of risible -- it is incomprehensible to me that you have tactical failures that night, senator feinstein herself said the incident was preventable in her report, how no one could be held accountable. i asked secretary clinton. her answer was the law prevented her from firing someone. i find that an unsatisfactory response. ask later,hance to did you do anything. you cannot fire them if the law prevented you, which i do not believe, but did she write a letter, reprimand, did you talk to them, did you counsel -- was there any repercussions from the fact that four americans were killed, and your organization was intimately involved with setting up this facility, you sent your friend, ambassador , yours
organization put them in place. house back in kansas, i get this question more than any other -- we are still not there. i hope our report can go a long way to setting up the accountability. factcheck.org site says nothing new came out of that line of questioning. it has been known since august 2013 that four state department employees, who were placed on administrative leave for their roles in providing inadequate security and benghazi, were reassigned to other jobs at the state department, but not fired, after an internal department review. 20, 20 13 press briefing, then-department spokeswoman marie harf said the decision not to fire them was based on "the totality of the facts." guest: secretary clinton did not
say anything about the totality of the facts or she said the arb did not reach the level of complicity such that they could take action, so she completely shun responsibility for that. i will add this. a lot of folks there were no new facts. had the secretary of state under oath testifying. that is radically different than statestate department -- department employee standing at a podium. i think we owed it to secretary clinton to give her an opportunity to explain why that choice is made. it would be unfair to have held her accountable. i just don't agree. i think it was important that she came to the committee and said it was unlawful for a secretary of state to fire an employee who works for her. florida.crat host:, your next. caller: i watched everything.
i like that you ran your own company but i don't leave you have -- i don't believe you had cia at your company. i would like to know if your requests -- how many the cia had to upgrade their also out ofd act -- the 270 something ambassadors, not a single ambassador had an e-mail to mrs. clinton. i am just wondering why you did not have the cia director on before you had her. this was all a cia operation. you know it, i know it, everybody knows it. you are just trying to push buttons and make everything look good. host: a few things there for you. guest: let me try to unpack that a little bit. therei have to say that are a handful of things i cannot say in an unclassified setting, but i think i can respond to the question pretty fully.
it is the case that it has now been identified that there was a cia annex there, we have spoken to folks in the central intelligence agency. the tricky thing here is every bit of work this committee has done prior to secondary clinton's testimony we have done behind closed doors. chairman doughty and i concur -- chairman doughty -- gowdy and i it should occur in a setting different than the one we saw on thursday. many of the actions of the committee has taken with respect to your questions about the cia security level, its posture, those things, let me assure all of your viewers and listeners that we will absolutely ask those questions. we will get answers to those questions as best we can and we will include those in the report that we write up to the extent that we can do so in an unclassified setting. i'm confident that we can fully explain the cia's security there that night. host: let me follow up.
is there any investigation into the cia? guest: absolutely. we will absolutely investigate decision-making, that certainly includes the cia. government u.s. analysis of the security risk of operating in libya, and benghazi. we will hopefully get solid answers so we can explain the security risk. what about the decision to talk about the video publicly? is it possible, or is there evidence that that was being pushed by the cia to protect assets or operations, or some other intelligence reason, and that was why this administration and the administration officials were told to talk about a video akyll -- a video jekyll -- video? guest: absolutely no evidence.
none. this was being pushed out of the white house. this idea of the video first appears when the administration inside the white house begins to ask westerns about the politics of the events that night. we have not fully developed the fact here, but i see no evidence that the video was an effort to .omehow protect an operation host: where the talking points adopted by the cia? guest: a whole bunch of hands in the talking points. morel was the then deputy director of the cia. he certainly had a role, but you can just look at the e-mail chain. there were lots of helping hands leading to the drafting of the talking points. what we know from the testimony is that secretary clinton knew -- her word, not mine -- she
knew this was a terrorist attack . that is deeply inconsistent. we will have to flesh that out through other witnesses in terms of what the knowledge of the whole government was. host: ok. jenny is next, republican, ohio. you are echoing for some reason. i don't know why. host: you have to turn your tv down. we are going to move on to larry in fort worth texas, a democrat. caller: good morning. hello c-span. i would like to know, will the republicans ever form a committee to investigate those 4000 soldiers killed in the iraq war? that is my concern. you are always talking about those four people, i am talking about 4000. their deaths happened also. yes sir.
i have a former soldier, i served in academe duty in the in the inactive duty army for five years. i take seriously every death of every american who was in harm's way country on behalf of our nation. i certainly take the death of every soldier who fought in afghanistan and iraq, and all the places we have sent our last women, thereand has been lots of inquiry and tremendous oversight by congress about that activity. i'm sure that will continue. whether there ought to be a special committee -- i will leave that to others. i was given a task to perform, i take that duty seriously and will continue to until we feel like we have committed that mission. host: mike pompeo of kansas. he is on the select committee and is serving on the select benghazi committee investigating what happened on september 11, 2012. former u.s. military, academy at west point, graduated first in
his class. law degree from harvard law school. frank, an independent. high. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. good morning representative. i appreciate c-span and the opportunity to talk like this. it is a great program. my question is this. why wasn't the head of the cia right next to mrs. clinton? why wasn't the head of the defense department right there? why did you have to have her by herself? i just have to say a comment really quick -- the hypocrisy of the republicans on this issue is unbelievable. i have never seen anything like it. get back to work on some real issues. thank you. guest: i have two thoughts. i had a chance to speak after the hearing on thursday with --
a one of the fathers. and so the critique that this is not important i suddenly have a different view. i think it is important that we do this professionally, with a seriousness and a focus. there is lots of disagreement. i think what you saw from the republicans with a fact-based and -- inquiry and we will continue in that way. with respect to why she was there by herself, two thoughts. first, the committee would have much preferred to have conducted this hearing in the same way we conducted the other hearings -- away from the lights and the cameras. secretary clinton made it a condition of her attendance that she would refuse to come unless this was a public hearing. she came voluntarily and so we agreed to comply with that request. i'm not certain if we asked her if she would have preferred to have others around her. i suspect she would have preferred to be there by herself. that is how we have conducted these. these are not hearings in the way you see congressional
hearings. this was truly something that was a hybrid. it was a combination of , hearing, investigation. trying to uncover fact. having additional witnesses would have made that even more difficult. but if your point is do we think that secretary panetta and director trias had important roles in the event in libya, we do. the committee does. i am optimistic we will get their testimony. host: what do you think their roles were? guest: secretary panetta was the secretary of defense, so he would be responsible for the military layout that the u.s. government decided with appropriate for north africa, europe, all of the access that would have been pre-positioned. he would have also been involved in the responses that night, decisions about what equipment was sent, what wasn't. the dod had an ordered role both in the run-up to the events that evening as well as the events of
the night of the attack. of course we talked about the fact that there were cia operations adjacent to the state department facility, so director for trance would have been responsible for those men on the ground there. folks who wenta to try to rescue ambassador of the and the folks state department. he certainly was involved in the decisions around what was taking place in eastern libya. host: janet in florida, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, i would like to , did the cia asked for more security around the time? to pay congress refuse them more security at that time dr. -- to pay them more security at that time? guest: i can't answer that question, not because it is classified, but because i do not know. but i can assure you we will identify all requests, either
within libya -- some of these requests only made it as far as tripoli, or those that made other decision-making points. we will get all those answers. as for spending, secondary clinton mentioned this. i think it is completely appropriate to talk about whether congress appropriated sufficient funds so that we had decision-makers who have the ability to actually achieve levels of security that were appropriate. i ame seen no documents -- always careful, we may see one -- i have seen no documents to date that indicate the central intelligence agency felt it needed to increase resources to perform the functions it was performing at the time. open to seeing them, but i have not seen anything like that. host: you are talking with congressman mike pompeo, one of the seven republicans that sit on that select committee on one that sat on the
committee last week questioning former secretary clinton. now it is a return to ask questions of the congress in. john in new hampshire, and independent. you are next. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i have several questions. i will try to make this very quick. this reminds me of the debate between romney and obama when romney said that obama did not call it a terrorist attack [indiscernible] when in fact she did call it a terrorist attack. there were four different investigations into this
incident, and of all those investigations -- the cia, the department of defense, all the things that we were led to believe were debunked. told to standot down, for example. why wasn'tpound -- the panic room better built, better constructed? and i have some other questions that i read in that same report. absolutely --aw, it absolutely disgusted me. , why wasn't hearing the debbie terry -- deputy secretary of state there, what was a general trace their?
you had her for 11 hours, literally yelling at secretary hillary clinton. i am not a proponent either way -- all this happened, it's a tragedy. not, itit is a video or is a terrorist attack. host: we will leave it there for the congressman to respond. point wasr first about whether the president .alled this a terrorist attack we still had sort out a handful of things. in some sense the importance is trying to understand going forward. justission is broader than a simple accountability. it is the fact that the american people deserve to have their elected officials tell them what they know. i can absolutely imagine a situation in the immediate aftermath that it would be confusing.
the intelligence that came in from multiple sources could well have been fundamentally at odds or disconnected or conflicting. i have seen this in my work in the intelligence community, where painting a picture of what really took place. but what we found out is that sex very kind and very clearly viewed this as a terrorist attack. it is what she told her family members. it is what she told two different governments. there was not any different can -- any confusion, at least in her mind. it is also true that much of the intelligence has been provided already. mr. hicks, who testified before the house foreign affairs committee and was the deputy said therein tripoli was no evidence that there was ever any protest of the site. the folks on the ground all work consistent with what secretary clinton said in her e-mails to important people that night, and yet the government went out for weeks and talked about this
different series of events -- indeed according to charles woods, the transfer of the remains of his son, they said that they were going to go catch the guys who made this video. that is not how government officers haze. i think that is important. he mentioned the stand down. i think that is worth talking about two. we get secretary clinton a chance to answer that very directly. not to haveunfair asked her about the standout, to not -- stands down -- stands .own she said at no point was any order given to stand down. have seen that the department of defense has testified that they too did not give any such order. that is the conclusion of all the testimony we have garnered, we'll write that. this is truly not an effort -- i
appreciate it. the media has turned this into the benghazi committee versus hillary clinton. there are things i can control and things i cannot. from our perspective this is not that. this is not the benghazi committee against anyone. committeee bengali attempting to perform the task we have been given by the house of representatives to go out and do a thorough investigation. it may disappoint people on the political right, it may disappoint people on the political left. that is of no import. we do have an obligation and we will keep doing it until we can't get much further, and then we will let everybody know what we found. host: i do have to ask you this because this is being tweeted out by the nbc correspondent up on capitol hill. heading into the gop meeting on who could be their next speaker, he says paul ryan now supports the budget deal. rails against how the sausage was made but thinks it is meaningful. you and your colleagues are
meeting behind closed doors in 10 minutes to hear from paul ryan, daniel webster, and any other potential candidates for speaker about how they would do the job. what do you think this means? guest: i think the way the sausage was made was horrific. .aul said it stinks we have now had access to a 144 page document for less than 48 hours. i think i know the outline of what is in it but this is just not the way the government ought to operate. there are aough handful of good things in this i came to washington dc to do every thing i could to reduce the size and scope of federal government. this expands government so i think it takes us in the wrong direction. host: you are a no vote then? guest: yes. host: we are just showing our viewers the room where you will be gathering.
guest: i will be there in a moment. from paulwill hear ryan and you will hear from daniel webster later on today. that is when you will vote for speaker. how do you plan to vote? guest: i will vote for speaker ryan. i will do so with the understanding -- i know him pretty well. he is a man with a conservative part and conservative instincts. i think that matters a lot to get things done, especially with a president who has such a deep disagreement with my vision for how america ought to proceed, and i think paul's vision to -- i think that is how it will play out. host: despite his support for this budget deal? guest: yes. i have not gotten everything right either. host: gerald in cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: there were three things that came out of committee. one was that the host country
would not or could not send troops to the embassy. the other was that the host country denied american troops coming to defend the embassy. was the navy was too far away to send troops to defend the embassy. this same thing happened 13 times under the bush administration. the same thing happened. the commission report, which you should be familiar with, says that if the host country cannot defend the embassy the embassy basically cannot be defended. the security questions -- 600 they wereuestions -- not going to get troops there. there were not going to get their troops, libyan troops, or any troops there. was the wall too high? was there not enough firepower? a massive terrorist attack would have overrun the embassy.
if you really wanted to get to the truth of the embassy attack you should have historical concept. why wasn't condoleezza rice or colin powell brought before you and asked what happened to those troops when they had 60 americans die? host: congressman? guest: those are great, very important questions. you talk about the commission, we actually did ask questions -- to secretary clinton about it. we asked her if she had signed a waiver. as a result of the commissioner is a law which requires the secretary of state personally to sign a waiver if there are state department people at a facility that does not meet the standards -- that is not consistent with the security requirements. this facility clearly was not, and she did not sign a waiver. there was a question about why it was not signed.
her response was, if i recall, this was not really an embassy. this is not really a consulate ?- perhaps, but what was it is it the case that the secretary of state can avoid her legal requirements under the law by just calling it a unicorn? i think that is deeply troubling. the commission rules were put in place for a reason. we will absolutely look at the history of security issues. this is not the first time we have had incidents at the state department, facilities all around the world. we will look at what previous secretaries of state did and then we will have to apply it. host: i think the earlier caller said there have been for other investigations -- there have been seven other investigations. is that correct, this is the eighth? been: i think there have seven previous investigations if you include the accountability review board. there have been multiple investigations. host: and you are confident you will learn something new? guest: i'm confident we have.
remember, i served on one of those. i served on the house intelligence committee. in a way began before i was on the committee but i was there as they completed it. remember, its mission was to look at the intelligence issues that surrounded it -- it had a very narrow focus. was the intelligence right? didn't get there in a timely fashion? anddid the cia operate -- the intelligence community more broadly? issuesed at intelligence and intelligence issues alone. the other committee conducted investigations in the area that their committee was tasked with exploring. this is the first time we have had a committee that had the opportunity to have access to all of the materials. i have to tell you, we still don't have that. i have heard all of these other committees -- none of them had access to the materials that we have access to, and even this committee does not yet have access to important documents and materials that we will need
to complete our investigation. host: we will go next to leesburg, ohio, a republican. i would like to thank you for taking my call and i would like to thank you for what you are doing with the benghazi situation. thetched the situation -- hearing and i have a lot of respect for trey gowdy and for you. my question is, if we do find that there is a reason to on not onlyrosecute benghazi but on everything treasonous, are you going to be able to do it or is it going to be something that obama can atdon to kind of undercover so that the american people don't know about it? you have got your hands full. i see everything being sought and i am proud -- thought -- i ht anderything being foug
i am proud of the republican party is standing up. she had 600 e-mails. the american people know that the six -- servicemen were told to stand down. i'm just wondering what you can do if you actually come up with evidence that this is been done? host: ok rita, i will have the congress and take those questions. guest: great questions. our committee has a broad scope of investigation, but nothing more than that. reportk is to complete a . that report should be duly footnoted, provide as much evidence as we can. we are also working to declassify as much of the .nformation as we can the american people should know we are working towards that. but our task is about what happened as a result of this -- other government activities and
how the state permit handles these employees. whether congress decides to take action. our committee will file that report. we like slated as best we can and then our committee's work will be complete. host: in chicago, kathleen, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: just fine. your question or comment. you all are still trying to figure out if hillary clinton lied about benghazi. it's like you all thought that you she knew ahead of time what was going to happen in this country. but fast-forward back to bush, bush, cheney, condoleezza rice. we know for a fact now -- because we have even heard some of you all say -- that bush sent 4000 people to their death on a lie. that is not counting to 3000. why didn't bush know ahead of time that we were going to have a catastrophe right here in new york? why didn't you know that?
and by we now knowing that bush lied about starting a war over there in iraq, why are you saying that we are going to look into it? it has been almost 15 years. when are you really going to look into it? you are making a mockery out of those four dead people. what four dead people compared to 7000 dead people? the ones on 9/11 plus the soldiers, and the billions of dollars we are spending every day. no death should be no more important, but you guys are doing one thing -- you are trying to stop hillary clinton from getting to that white house. it is not going to work. host: congressman? guest: yes ma'am. i can tell you, you ask why we have not done a bunch of things -- it was not our mission. our mission was the one that i have described so far this morning. you suggested that somehow
hillary clinton knew in advance that this is going to happen, i did not hear anybody on the committee -- republican or democrat -- make that allegation. i have not heard them do that before or after. i have seen no evidence that she knew of the fact that this attack was going to take lace. that some e-mail came in and said there will be an attack tomorrow at 3:00, we will see you there. no one has seen any evidence that supports that. what we have talked about is what you could have known and what you could have done, and what would have been appropriate to have done. someone earlier said, but you could not have had enough security there. twice as many security agents, or 10 times as many, the security might well still have been overrun. that is possible. i will concede that, this was a ferocious attack. in my judgment, a preplanned attack, and very deeply organized. i don't think this report will
say, gosh, had some particular change been made we could necessarily have saved those lives. what we will look at is what we could've have done to reduce that risk. what would have made it more likely that even if the compound had been overrun that we could have gotten ambassador stevens and his aid out of there that night? safetythem to a place of and security, as we did with most of the men on the ground that night. there was one other suggestion, and i think this is worth addressing. our committee hasn't criticized for talking about hillary .linton e-mail server too much what does that have to do with benghazi? i guess i would say, we did not start down that path. we only learned -- during the course of our investigation, when we sought her e-mails -- gov accountwas no . for her. we were as surprised as many americans.
how did we get access to them? they are not her e-mails, they are the taxpayers e-mail. we had this task of trying to get this information be of the state department so our committee could review her business related e-mails. we worked hard to get them, there is no doubt about that. i think the american people have learned from that work. and then the final thought is -- i have not done the math, so someone should go fact check me -- but i think you take a look at the questions of the republicans asked last week, there are a few of them were connected to whether there was classified information. we believe that is the fbi's job to go continue to investigate. they have that server, apparently in the middle of investigation. our committee spent nearly no time on that topic. we were told of they're going to spend all this time -- we do not do that. we did not talk much about her
private server at all. we spent our time trying to unpack the details around how is it the case that four americans were killed and how to reproduce -- reduce the risk that this happens again? i think in that respect people were surprised by how much we stayed on vision. i was very proud of the work we did. host: what about the political clout that hangs over the committee after what was said by kevin mccarthy about this committee should get credit for taking down hillary clinton's poll numbers? did that hang over the committee? did you feel it? guest: you certainly feel it. kevin mccarthy had it wrong. i can't account for why they said it, why they chose to make the statements. i have been involved in this for 17 months, and i have watched the committee work. i have watched our team. we have been focused on the mission. we do our level best to avoid the circus that surrounds this.
we did not fan the flames of this thing. we would have done this very differently had secretary clinton not demanded that this be an open and public hearing, and we cannot control what others might say. , the cost haspeo been an issue as well. some say that 4.7 million just for the -- some say $4.7 million for the committee's work. what costs $4.7 million to investigate? guest: as a fiscal conservative i assure you i am using every working moment to steer taxpayer dollars. it has taken an enormous amount of staff work -- people i assume is the vast majority of these costs -- to pursue this investigation. that cost has been compounded an increased by the fact that at every turn, every democrat on our committee has stonewalled us. it could not have been more clear on thursday that the democrats had zero interest in
identifying how it was that for americans were killed let -- that night. we could do the math on this too. we spent -- they spent an awful lot of time attacking chairman gaudi -- gowdy. they showed a clip of me from "meet the press ergo you have to tell me how that is helpful. having said that, if we can do even a little bit of good and reduce the risk that one person is killed moving forward, i will consider the money that this investigation has spent a very useful and productive use of taxpayer money. ,ost: congressman mike pompeo we appreciate you talking to our viewers this morning. coming up, we talked to democrat john larson, a member of the ways and means committee, about the two-year budget deal. then later we will go inside kochindustries --
from expressing my ideas. [applause] mind,ty ford spoke her was pro-choice, and a supporter of the equal rights amendment. she and president gerald ford openly discussed her battle with breast cancer. she struggled with drug and alcohol dependency, confronting her addiction defined her post-white house years. but he ford, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span original series, first ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to at 8:00 obama, sunday p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. c-span has your best access liven -- congress, with
coverage from capitol hill. in the closing months of the year the house and senate have several key items to address. on thursday, it's the most for the next speaker of the house. shown my colleagues that i think success looks like, what if they can take to unify and how might family commitment comes first. i have left this decision in their hands, and should they agree with these requests than i am happy and willing to get to work. >> there is also the deadline for a highway funding bill, impacting roads, bridges, and mass transit across the country. in early november the nation will reach its limit, and in december temporary government funding will expire, with a possible government shutdown on the horizon. stay with c-span for live onerage of congress, on tv, the radio, and online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative john larson at our table this morning,
member of a way -- the ways and means committee. let's talk about this billion dollar budget deal. how do you plan to vote? thet: i plan to vote for bill, but it is interesting how we got here. let me start by giving john boehner credit. andink facing the turmoil chaos that the house has faced, and send with the rejection on the part of the republican conference of kevin mccarthy -- and what everyone assumes will be the election of paul ryan by the conference, and then tomorrow by the republican , there are a lot of movable parts. one thing i think boehner deserves credit for is making sure that he paves the way -- aved the way.-- p
many thought that would come through him by way of an omnibus bill. i will think many could of predicted that he would have resigned. we said earlier off-camera, i think we have to give hope francis some credit. not for his resignation, but i think for setting a tone here in washington, perhaps one that will carry over where i think speaker banner did some deep soul -- speaker banner -- some deepehner did soul-searching. he did not want to put his country through crisis and all exists.rtainty that of coarse it carries with it the vote,ible drama of the first kevin mccarthy and then currently paul ryan, everything that the republican congress is
currently going through. amidst that, if you can then come up with a compromise, it should not be a dirty word in washington. it should be the way the people solve problems and try to come up with solutions, it is what the american people really want. i think yesterday was a foreboding of what was to come, and you saw initially 42 republicans break ranks. they votedst time for campaign finance reform back in 2002. that's very rare, but it just shows you the extraordinary measures that it took to break this gridlock. a visit by the pope, a resignation of a speaker. a real turmoil within a conference, resulting in a more -- the more moderate wing of
their public and party saying, wait a minute. we were sent here to get things done. the export import bank i think is the start of a movement amid the republican congress by saying here is an issue with things that are important with infrastructureke and highway. those are not democrat or republican issues. those are american issues. the formula for us to go forward, and i think frankly paul ryan is sensitive to that. including this-- two-year budget -- it might not be the budget the democrats , but thefer alternative was far worse. there are a number of things -- most notably for us, the preservation of social security and medicare.
we have presidential debates going on, one this evening where we are featuring the two leading republican candidates. trump --avors donald one who favors, donald trump, continuing social security and medicare. and one who would abolish it altogether, ben carson. we live in interesting times. host: let's talk about -- i just want our viewers to know, export import bank, the 42 republicans that went forward with this discharge are in the washington post. the establishment republicans teaming up with all but one democrat to approve the renewal of the export import bank. speaking of which -- guest: 127 of them vote for final passage. we saw that swell when those who had the courage to say hey, look, this is what we're going to put forward. host: 127 republicans? guest: 127 republicans and all but one democrat.
host: they are behind doors -- closed doors as we speak in the basement of the capital. we have shown you that room and reporters are waiting outside, because they are listening to paul ryan and his bid for speakership. and they will hear from daniel webster. and if there are any other unexpected candidate for speaker -- we are not expecting any. then later on today, 1:30 p.m. eastern time -- we told you want --ies -- -- earlier -- -- that is when they will vote on their next speaker. then the vote will come to the floor tomorrow. a full house boat. you will hear the roll call. each member of congress will say their person for speaker. you'll hear that rollcall. turn into -- tune in to c-span for that. our guests now democrat john larson. we go to where in boston, democrat. caller: hello.
i want to talk about a couple of things. phrase "the, the american people" is one that really annoys me because it is not accurate. hearings, i heard that phrase over and over again. this",erican people want they want that. i am an american and i completely disagree with the whole process and spending all that money for absolutely nothing. as far as the budget deal goes, i don't like it. i don't think that president obama likes it. i think it is a better code we have to swallow because the alternative is unacceptable. government shutdown is totally unacceptable. democratss talk about , what you want and what you lost in this budget deal. guest: first of all, let me agree with larry.
first on benghazi, let me say -- what the american people wanted was a thorough investigation, that the facts came forward with respect to the loss of four americans. i think what they saw instead is more theater. so yes, that phrase was used quite a bit but i thought that secretary clinton performed admirably over what was almost 11 hours of grilling. and i think that that speaks volumes to the process. it looked like it was more prosecutorial then it was in terms of getting after what happened so that this never happens again. with respect to the deal that has just been
the president and leadership, a lot of rank and file members are left out of that process. that is what washington has come down to. paul ryan in his speech today will be talking about a return to regular order. would that be so. democrats would very much be in favor of that. as the caller also indicated, we would like to see a much more robust deal on several fronts. but given the alternative, facing yet another crisis and a group that is more than willing to shut the government down, the american people -- again, i will use that phrase -- do not deserve that. the last time we lost the $4 billion. and the uncertainty and anxiety that i created for so many people is just not worth it. mix, on got into the the plus side what we see is
that social security and medicare are both preserved in this budget. and specifically, social security. because of the evident problems that exist on the disability side. notwithstanding, democrats long-standing position, and mine specifically, that what we have to do is strengthen social security. think of it now, and it went in a way that impacts all americans , instead of talking about cutting the program or raising the age, with the largest group of americans is going to be going through the system. when so many of them, 55 years and older, are relying on social security as perhaps their only as they sustenance retire. this is the time to talk about strengthening the program, not weakening the program. this is the time to talk about what we need to do to help people. the budget should be increased
overall by 2%. the fund should be changed in should --ts cpi, we instead of cpi, which would prevent people, the older they get the less they receive, and e, whichd to go to cpi would be the actual cause the elderly and kerr -- would be the actual cost of the elderly and kurt -- incur. we should also ensure that people do not retire into poverty. we have to change social security so that the minimum benefit is at the level of 125% above poverty, -- guaranteeing -- especially for working women -- that they cannot retire into poverty. i have people in my district that subsist on $9,000 a year of
social security. that cannot go on. we also need to provide a tax cut. here i think we have a great compromise. how about we join together, come up with a tax cut for more than 11 million working seniors. the tax code with indexed on social security back in 1983. i think your viewers would be interested to know what has not gone up in price since 1983? every time i have a work group i asked them, has your insurance premium got up? has the heating of your home grown up? has the cost of groceries were -- gone up? they all have. but your social security has not. if you are single and you retire and you are on social security, if you make more than $24,000 you pay a social security tax. if you are a married couple and make more than $32,000 you are taxed under social security. let's raise those rates and let's do it so that it is 50,000
for an individual, $100,000 for a couple. only grow exponentially because of the baby boomers. that is what we need to do. host: lots of calls for you congress in. jonathan, portland, oregon, an independent. caller: good morning. why do you stop looking at tits -- -- grata's host: we will move on. for taking myyou call. i wanted to speak on the last government shutdown. they are the most obstructionist governor -- government we have ever seen. he has refused to negotiate since day one. host: well, i don't know whether or not -- guest: i don't whether or not
the caller had amnesia, but certainly obama negotiated at every single level. he famously negotiated with john .oehner john boehner took back those negotiations to his caucus, which then rejected president obama's proposal. john boehner then put forward his own proposal. his caucus rejected his proposal . we have in washington right now -- and i think this is important historically -- washington warned about this in his farewell address. he said that when you have andssive hearty spirit -- that is was is going on within the republican conference -- when you have a government at war with its own government that will lead to destruction. that will lead to crippling the government. than havingrse outside criticism of the government. clearly back in the days of washington when there were political parties -- primarily
federalist and anti-federalist -- when the government was new, this was a great concern. when youreat today have people who are obstructing a process, at war with their own government. carolina, terry, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three quick things. to tell you why we should give you not one penny. someone else was on the program the other day touting the stimulus. $49 billion. i want to know where the up -- where the other 800 billion are? i want to know where the tax revenue that obama got on the rich during his last election went. and last but not least, gretchen, you have this line democrat here. let me give you an $86,000 fact. the bond holders have not been
paid, and this man, along with the president, stole that money. you are nothing more than the seas. host: ok. it is easy for you to shoot arrows when you are anonymous. what are you referring to? caller: the bondholders of when they went-- to bail outmoney general motors, they took the money from them, the bondholders at general motors. and i have asked you this question four times. you were told face-to-face that the bondholders would be paid back. host: all right. congressman, you care to respond? you have been told four times already. [laughter] guest: i apologize, it is not clear to me what the caller is talking about.
rather than answer without knowledge -- host: the first part of his questioning -- guest: i did not hear that. host: you are having problems. guest: what was a? host: i had trouble hearing it as well. so we'll move on. ronald in arlington, virginia, independent color -- caller. caller: first i would like to say america needs the independent party, because the democratic and republican parties are letting us down. first i would like to say to representative larson that he is being disingenuous about the benghazi committee because the democrats could have still answered questions -- asked questions of anybody, especially hillary clinton, about why did libya become a failed state? and if we could only find out
what was happening at the cia annex that was causing some problems -- if we went into libya and supported the overthrow of gaddafi and turns that country into a failed state , why did that happen, why did we let it happen, and we could have asked questions. thank you very much. guest: nobody is defending hillary clinton, and actually i think he has asked some very good questions. is,y question to the viewer why do you think the republicans did not call the cia in front of the committee to talk to them about what happened at the annex? clearly secretary of state clinton is not in charge of the cia annex. why didn't they call in front of them the head of the joint chiefs of staff and the pentagon to talk about what was there in terms of defending and making sure that we are making all the
correct questions? neither of them showed up. instead we spent all this time, money, and effort focused on secretary clinton. this is after not one but eight other committees have viewed this. maybe i am a little sensitive, but when you go to your ninth downey --and chairman gowdy says, we have not learned anything new with respect to secretary clinton -- i think she said it best. i believe when you are in a position of responsibility like lostecretary, who said i more sleep and spent more sleepless nights wondering, and more time concerned about the loss of life -- and then pleaded with the committee at the end, let's not let this happen again. let's make sure that we get to the bottom of these problems, and do it in a coordinated the cia, clearly
clearly the pentagon should have been there to testify. admiral mullen's will look at this. they came too far different conclusions than this committee, as has everyone else. but i think he is right. those questions should have been asked, and they should have been asked by the people responsible for them. instead it turned into the prosecution of the secretary of state for what i think many would conclude were obvious political concerns. int: jean is a democrat jackson, michigan. you are next. caller: the social security and the national debt -- the government said a few years ago that over half the national debt money was owed to the social security commission. i think that congress is just trying to change the social security rules so they will
never have to pay that a trillion dollars back -- $8 trillion back. host: the congressman is shaking his head. that is not true. the social security fund is solvent and it is solvent until 2034. but as you know it also contains disability funds, which is dedicated to that. that would have been problematic in 2016. problematic meaning, there would have to be cuts in the program based on what money is available that they would have to send out. typically the way that this program happens is that the solvent part of the fund would lend money to the fund that needed it, until it got through this particular time. long-term we have to address these issues overall. some are advocating that we do away with social security. others are advocating that we
cut it or raise the age. what i am saying is this. is the most this important and most successful plan that the government has ever put forward. and what we have to do is make sure that the programs -- people have an aversion to talking about taxes, especially when they go to assist those that are in most need. certainly this program, social security, is the one that more americans rely on. it has been successful not only for retirees but for survivors, for children, for spouses, and of course on disability. look, i come from the private sector. i own an insurance agency. we would always talk about social security as being the third leg of a stool in terms of establishing financial success.
for so many people it is the only leg on the stool that they have, which is all the more reason why government has got to make sure that this is solvent and not just through 2033, but into the next century. by law we are supposed to make it solvent for 75 years. we have a bill, the social security act 2100, that does that. it is the only bill out there that does that, where the actuary has said this is solvent into the next century. there will be no doubt for millennials, there will be no doubt for any generation. it enhances the payments that people are currently receiving end doesn't in an affordable manner. host: we go to pennsylvania, bill, and independent. caller: he is talking about social security. i can tell you the social security he is talking about. my wife works 37 years for the government. i want to tell you something,
the both of you are playing games. the only thing he is going to do is destroy this country. comes in and trump fires every one of you. that is all i can say. that is all i people, and i hope american people stick together. you are destroying the whole country. host: bill, what you referring to? caller: the whole thing. this guy has been retired, 2, 3 years. the same thing to my cousin, a politician in greece. they did the same thing with greece. they put the whole country down the drain. this is what they are going to do here. these people never pay for anything, and the other guy works all his life and he doesn't get nothing. guest: i think one of the great myths -- again because people have demonized social security and called it in entitlement. next i'm, check your pay check
box.nd look in the fica it stands for the federal insurance contribution act. that is what you pay for, social security. social security is not in entitlement. it is the interns that people have paid for throughout their lifetime. it is the safety net for the entire country. i would, think that -- obviously, disagree with the viewer there. there are serious plans that are out there that are not going to put the nation further in debt that are actually paid for, but also doing it in a way that recognized a large group of people, baby boomers, that are currently going through the system and the need for the system, especially in little of what happened in 2000 -- in lieu of what happened in 2008. when president bush in 2005 said, well, what we ought to do
is voucher social security. invested all of their money at that time or had that bill gone through, what would happen in 2008 to everyone savings? their 401(k)s became one a one (k)s.-- became 101 host: one of them coming from jeb bush, unveiling it yesterday. here is the headline, bill unveils planline -- for medicare, social security reforms. can you explain that? he argues the change would give seniors more options and lead to
lower premiums. guest: well, this is a voucher system. it was one that was first introduced by paul ryan. listen, i understand there a version to mentioning taxes. and so instead of mentioning taxes, which all individuals pay , they trust that burden back onto the individual. ,n this great land of ours under the contract of we the people, we have come to the conclusion that medicare is the best way to guarantee that people, especially people in , who up until 1965 had no insurance and no coverage, they relied entirely on the private sector for funding.
that wasn't that long ago in 1965 when medicare passed. so the question became, how is it that people who work their entire lives, who are really the people who built the nation, people like from my hometown, blue-collar town, who work hard and play by the rules go out there and then find through no fault of their own that, you know, no fault of their own that the economy changes? that wall street collapses? then all of a sudden their 401(k)s become 101 (k)s. what do they have to live off of? the same history for medicare as it is for social security. obviously, there is another candidate to says, no, we can't make those changes. i would agree with the previous caller in that in that trump supports medicare. i think the honest conversation that needs to take place is
about how we are going to preserve these programs and recognize the real conversation about what is the across the table needs of everyday americans as they go into a retirement system. conversation,that as we have in our bill 2100, we come up with pay force. we say, people above $450,000, or we have a program called scrap the cap, they have to start paying again. you stop paying into social security after you are making $118,000 approximately. in other words, for bill gates by noon of january 1, he stops paying into the social security system. 4/10 of 1% ofthan the american people. should they continue to pay? i think so. i also thing we ought to
increase the fund by 1%. that means both the employer and the employee. minute, 1%, that is an awful lot of money. ok. but we phase it in over 25 years so that it becomes what amounts to for a person making $50,000 a year, $.50 a week. when i go out and speak on this, i usually bring a starbucks coffee and i hold it up and say how much do you think this costs? the cost is usually $4.50. for a person earning $50,000 a nine that would represent weeks of social security payments. so in the course of a week, of drinking starbucks coffees, you would more than pay for your social security increases, which would make sure that nobody could retire into poverty, provided tax cut for 11 million
seniors, and that will only grow exponentially because of the way our system was indexed back in 1983. come on. changes have taken place. i we living in a bubble where no changes have taken place -- are we living in a bubble where no changes have taken place? nobody wants to have those real, honest discussions about taxes. can someone making $50,000 a year afford $.50 a week to perpetuate the most successful program in american history? into the next century. host: kevin is a republican in wisconsin. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. i am a retired navy seal. i spent 22 years in the navy. i would like to ask the congressman to questions. i am a moderate republican. i'm not wanting to fight with
anybody. the first question is, the president is voted in and part of his responsibility is, number one, national security. number two is the national budget. why is it with the last couple presidents we have not seen a budget before they are voted on or shoved through congress like this one is? the second question is, mrs. clinton created the theater the other day, that was her request to do it that way. she wanted to make the committee look bad. the point is being missed by the american public. the idea is is that we are supposed to get supported in the field. during the presidential election in 2008, when president obama first ran against hillary clinton, they ran commercials saying, if you want a president that will answer the phone at 2:00 in the morning to answer difficult calls,
responsibilities around the world, vote for me. well, now have learned that neither one of them answer the call at 2:00 in the morning and we lost four people. host: congressman. guest: first of all, kevin, let me thank you for your service. anyone who serves as you have with distinction and a difficult seal,serving as a navy deserves an enormous amount of credit. but i would disagree with you on a couple of fronts, respectively. first of all, hillary clinton was asked to come before the committee. she said she would do so gladly. and did. and i thought answer the questions forthrightly. again, i will go back to what she has to say personally about the people. she knew the ambassador personally. so, i really think it is a disservice to the country and also to the men and women not only like yourself who served in the military, but people who
work for the state department and people who are in charge of security in terms of protecting those people at the state department. i do think, as the previous caller noted, that we should of have and i would -- should of had an opportunity if the committee wanted to look at what was going on within the cia, asked whether was in the support and also with the military had to say about this. for i have great respect admiral mullen and secretary pink ring, who also i thought did a thorough job of looking at this. and they came to entirely different conclusions. record thatfor the both president obama and secretary clinton, like you, our great american patriots who care deeply about the people who serve under them and have
sacrificed, in this case, given the full domestic measure of their devotion to their country. host: a democrat, missouri. caller: i would like to ask the speaker, why wouldn't he tell the truth about -- [indiscernible] he cut the budgets. host: what are you talking about? can you repeat that? caller: they cut the budget in 1979. they cut the budget to protect all them over there. now they can't tell us the truth. why would they tell the truth? guest: well, the budget has been cut. for state department. . the caller is right. that is a subject that should be explored. i thought the secretary in her testimony did that. she did not develop on that, and
i think rightfully so because i think everybody feels that once you are given the card you are dealt, you do the very best it can. but it continues to point out a problem, by the way, and i think you are right, that has existed back to the reagan administration, and probably before that, in terms of the sophisticated nature that is required of us making sure we are providing for the defense and well-being of those that are in the employ of the federal government stationed abroad. host: virginia, and independent. -- an independent. caller: hello. i think we need to change the face of the security -- social security argument. it is supposed to be a dollar in, a dollar out. the one thing we should have learned since reagan raised the social security tax to put the money in the lox box -- lockbox is that the government can't
take money. why do we go back to where it is a dollar in, dollar out? and think of it in that manner? host: congressman? guest: well, listen, i think people idea of a lockbox is, unfortunately, a term of art that was used to describe or give people some kind of visual for where the money is. social security is the full credit of the united states government had it also is insurance that people have paid for. you said it is generational. many would argue, well, you know, as soon as you have started a program, there was no way for you ever to catch up. although because it is the entire nation and because we have a system of actuary accountability, the system can be made sound and is in social security for the main benefits
through 2034. and now with this change in the budget, it will at least make the disability portion solid the through 2022. when i say solid, that they are able to make full payments. it is the full faith and credit of the meta-state government. social security has not been changed since 1983. i say to everyone out there, have any of the costs that you have incurred since 1983 got up? have you seen a rise in gasoline clothing,food prices, in heating and cooling are homes ? of kuester have. but social security really has not changed. and we also indexed the fund. so what we need is to both strengthen the fund and improve that, make sure that people can't retire into poverty, and make sure that actuarially it is there into the next century.
and provided tax cut for people that are working. why? because people are having to work longer today. many are working into their retirement. many because they need the money to survive. but they are taxed on those dollars that they have already paid in. let's give them the tax break that they deserve. it all goes right back into the economy. host: the debate over medicare, social security likely to come up at tonight's gop debate. it is hosted by cnbc at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. one headline, john kasich previews and aggressive new tone saying i am sick and tired of listening to this nonsense, referring to donald trump and ben carson, specifically that ben carson has said he would want to abolish medicare and medicaid. you might hear a little bit more of that tonight at the debate. jackie, north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning.
thank you for c-span. i enjoy watching it, and i have also learned a whole lot. guest: that is great. caller: my first comment is i think is because the majority of people when i say that the arguing between the republicans and the democrats has gotten to a new low. c-span, i have come to realize that when they come up to the podium and they speak, they are not speaking to anybody in that room. they are speaking to the cameras. are running out of time, so let's take that sentiment that you expressed there for the congressman. guest: i think that is a national sentiment. i think jackie expresses what people really feel. that it shouldn't be about democrat or republican, it should be about america. and i think you saw something in that passage.
you'll see more of that this week with a compromise. that is a good trend for the country. can it continue? we are going to have a new speaker. it more likely will be paul ryan. i think one thing that democrats and republicans in the house would all agree on is the return to regular order. and so i think that that will be a test for the new speaker, who i came in the congress with back in 1998. and while we may disagree philosophically and ideologically, i think that paul ryan is a fair-minded person. a person you can have strong disagreements with, but disagree with civilly. i think a lot of that has gone away on of the congress as well, but the caller's sentiment is exactly right. whenever i go home, people say to me, why can't you guys just work together? they are confounded by how congress seems to turn itself in
knots. i think the more you can see compromise, solutions, they are just not getting everything that they want. they are not getting it completely the way they would like to see it. there is give-and-take. where does and that exist anywhere else in society, starting with their own households? i think the more that people here that sentiment, the better off we will be. host: always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. appreciate it. host: coming up, we are going to turn our attention to a recent piece in "popular mechanics" on koch industries. we are going to go inside the conglomerate could we will talk with michael mooney about his piece and his visits to some of the koch brothers' facilities around the country. we will be right back.
>> it is a very touchy business, being a son or daughter of a dictator. you wouldn't wish this kind of life on most people really. so it is a collection of very interesting, sometimes lurid stories. but there are also point about tierney, about loyalty, about nature-or for -- nature-nurture coming even about democracy. announcer: on "q&a," on his book, "children of monsters." which talks about the lives of 20 children of dictators. >> i was able to talk to some knowledgeable people. i couldn't talk to any family members, which was usually the case. around toonly so many talk to, and only so many willing to say what they know or to divulge their feelings or experiences at all. i was digging around for any
scrap i possibly could because the sons and daughters -- most of them -- some of them become dictators, but most of them are footnotes in the sides. and you really have to dig to find out about them. announcer: sunday night 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." announcer: a signature feature of booktv is our all day coverage of book fairs from across the country. here's our schedule beginning this weekend. we will be in nashville for the southern festival of books. at the start of november, we are back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, the louisiana book festival. and at the end of november, we are live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. and the national book awards from new york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's
book tv. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: as part of our spotlight on magazine series, joining us from dallas this morning is "popular mechanics" contributor michael mooney to talk about his recent piece in the magazine on the koch brothers' industrial empire. you describe it as a massive conglomerate. what is koch industries? guest: it is a collection of companies dealing with all sorts of things from paper to cattle to oil and gas, which is where they started, to all sorts of plastics and all manner of products that also to people use in their daily lives. host: how did it get to this massive conglomerate? guest: the company started in 1940. their father, fred koch, started
it, and he figured out a new way of refining oil and kind of continue to figure out new ways of doing that kind of thing. and it just grew and grew and grew. they continued to acquire other companies and kind of grow all over the world. it has kind of been this incredible nonstop growth basically since the early 1940's. host: how much revenue do they make? guest: to the best of anyone's knowledge outside the company, it looks like about $115 billion a year. it is really hard to tell exactly how much they make. host: because it is a private company. how much do they have to disclose echo -- disclose? guest: because they are a private company, they don't have to disclose much in the way of financials. they talk about it and thanked terms, andn the bag the best -- in vague terms, and
the best we can the ground as they have doubled every six years for the last 25 or so years. host: how many americans do they employ? guest: they employ about 60,000 americans overall. and that is all of their companies, which includes flint hills resources and also to of other companies. doople do need the names -- know the names and don't need the companies -- and don't know the names. about 40,000 people overseas in about 60 countries. i think it is 59 countries right now. and i don't even know it's a comedy countries -- how many companies that is overseas. host: what are the roles of charles koch and david koch? guest: child's koch over -- charles koch oversees the company day today. david koch is the vice president
, and as far as i can tell, doesn't do in a norma's much of day-to-day with koch industries and the products, or as charles koch is overseeing -- whereas charles koch is overseeing day-to-day operations, he is in the cafeteria with the employees, having meetings, and this is a company he is largely in control of your host: for you able -- control love. host: were you able to interview the brothers? guest: i wasn't. the editor of "popular mechanics " was able to interview charles koch. we tried several times and he was not made available to me when i was in wichita. but afterwards, he was made available. host: what was it like to try to get access to the industry -- industries? talk about the process for koch industries granting you this access and visits to what they
do across many different industries. guest: it is a fascinating company for a lot of reasons. a lot of people don't realize what the koch do, how the money is made. , the words " name brothers" from politics, and the company makes and does so many things and it is so extensive and pervasive in our society, but they haven't really had a lot of reporters given access to the things that they do, to their various plants and that sign -- kind of thing. so we approach them and asked, you know, if we could do a profile of the company. what kind of access we might be able to get. at first, they -- well, they completely said no. then they came back and it was
kind of a long negotiation process going back-and-forth and figuring out exactly where we might be able to go and which aspects of their company we would be able to cover because it is so big. and their pr team is so big. and so it really took a, i think, probably four months total from start to finish just negotiating. host: what were some of those terms? guest: the terms were what facilities would be open to me. and when they did open a facility to me, they gave me a complete to her -- tour, they shown the around, the give me access to almost all the employees and kind of showed me what the company does, what the company makes, and how -- and what kind of innovations they are involved with. i didn't really have to agree to not do or not say anything. it was more of what they were
going to be able to show me. host: and charles koch has been giving more interviews as of late because he is coming out with a book. shy media ceo has said i've always followed the whalehales' advice to the son -- we are talking with michael mooney of "popular mechanics." he toured many facilities of the koch brothers. probably moretill access than any reporter has ever been given probably since the company began, but seven facilities still just a small slice of the massive number of places and people that the
company employs. host: what are some of the takeaways from your business and what you learned? guest: it really is about the fact that it is what -- it is what koch does that nobody knows about. if you want to do boycott koch industries, you would have an extremely difficult time. what they make is everything from the fibers in your carpet to the glass in your windows to the connections in your electronics and your computers. of course, oil and gas and every kind of product that is involved in that industry. and then products that are made from petroleum products. so, -- and then other, you know, kind of consumer products as well. half the paper i'll in walmart -- aisle in walmart are koch products. it is the massive, pervasive
nature of the company. it is incredible. and they really are producing products that people want, that people are buying and use every day. host: what of his criticisms of koch industries is that they are a major polluter in the united states. guest: well, yeah, they do pollute a lot just because of the sheer amount of business that they do, the sheer amount of oil that the process and yeah,e it yet, they do -- they do pollute in a norma's amount, but they also -- and they have been involved in lawsuits and settlements, but they take large precautions and they do and enormous amount of innovation. -- an anonymous amount of innovation. they are one of the few companies of their size ahead of epa's standards, not because of some ultra stick believe, but because it is more profitable.
they know standards will be changing. they are kind of ahead of industry and a lot of ways in terms of pollution control, and they have made a very profitable business out of pollution control. host: and we can talk a little bit more specifically -- you give examples and the story of how the koch brothers don't believe in climate change, but they do use renewable energy. guest: yeah. i mean, it is profitable. if it is profitable and growth thented and can help make company profitable for a number of years, they are going to do it. and that involves renewable resources. when they use trees, they make sure that the place -- they make sure that those trees are replaced. for everyone treat that is consumed, i think five trees are planted. host: on the water they use when
you are making paper, a large amount of water is needed when you are making paper. they try to capture and reuse a lot of that water. yes, as a writer, i use paper all the time. i had no idea how it was made. it uses an enormous amount of water. that is why so many of the big neighbor plants are close to rivers. -- big paper plants are close to rivers. they use millions and millions of gallons of water and have massive system set up to capture it and reuse it. and that is true a love -- true of a lot of the energy there. they use a lot of the bark from the trees to power the plant. it is really incredible. host: let's get to calls. jack in rhode island, a democrat, you are up first. caller: hi, good morning. know,ve to commend, you
that family. i saw charles koch interviewed by megyn kelly. you can see he is a very modest soft-spoken, but highly intelligent individual. very focused. and where you have to commend them, though, as he took over a company with his brother that was worth $21 million from the father, and the father didn't want them to be playboys. -- [indiscernible] -- it is going to be a mistake. and they built a massive, massive corporation. good, and they make things. that is a germanic quality. i am a retired manufacturing engineer. we make products. we just don't move paper like -- [indiscernible] host: i want michael mooney to weigh in on what he is hearing from you. did you feel that as part of the
company's culture? guest: yeah, they are making things. this is part of american manufacturing. they are doing things that a lot of companies -- that people complain about. there is a lot of finance, and the koch brothers and koch industries have a lot of financial aspects, too, but they are making actual things that people really are using. so there is some -- you know -- i wouldn't want to be on the side of defending the koch brothers necessarily, but they are doing really incredible things. host: tony, south carolina, a republican. caller: good morning. i am just picking this up. i have no preparations for this, but why don't we compare the koch brothers with monsanto? let me say, before you buy a chevy, you drive a ford. you can only find out the good
of the car if you compare it against something else. and it talk about koch, seems like it is good talk, let's talk about monsanto and put that against koch. monsanto makes -- i mean, koch makes good products, montalto makes poison. monsanto has corporations in 71 countries. ask the farmer about the seed he has to buy from monsanto. where does the aluminum cover from? monsanto is providing the planes that if letting this guy's in america and all -- the skies -- the planes that are flooding the skies in america and all the other countries. chemical trails don't dissipate. they spread out. what you think are clouds sometimes are really -- that is why we have a lot of rain sometimes. ask the guys in vietnam when they flooded the trail.
they used aluminum oxide. that is what is in your skies now, supplied by monsanto. host: michael mooney, did any of the people you talk to -- did they talk about the criticism of koch industries and the koch brothers and what they are trying to do? guest: first of all, there is a diverse group of people working for the company. with 100,000 employees, i talked to plenty of people who voted for obama two times and work for the koch brothers. but there are a lot of people who take personal offense at cannes of the criticism and the overall attitude towards koch that they are a big, evil corporation only. and they are obviously compared with monsanto a lot. and koch is involved in fertilizer and also to products like that, by the way.
but a lot of employees really wanted to express to me -- they wanted me to look around. this is a company that is employing a lot of people. this is middle america. this is modern american manufacturing. this is a lot of virtues that kind of don't traditionally get covered in the media that, you know, for any criticism the company gets, these people felt it was really important that a no a lot of positive aspects about the company. host: american great, a super pac that responds to republicans, whether they are running for president or republicans in office, they have been very critical of the koch brothers, and they put this on their website, the koch industries have outsourced and they contribute to job losses in the united states. he can see the numbers there. this is american bridge, a super pac dedicated to the criticism
of republicans. florida, we are talking about koch industries with michael mooney. go ahead. caller: yes, greta, good morning, everybody. brothers' father was from the -- [indiscernible] -- society. 1970'sre there in the and repeated this ultrasecret society that wants to do away with the unions and wants to build up all the corporations. and just shrinking government. greta, i do have to say one thing in your situation. when brian lamb, last week he was on the air, that whole week there was a really bad crisis, and every time somebody called out and tried to constructively
policy, hesrael's totally trashed everybody all week. and they took him off the hair, and rightfully so. ron, that isost: not the reason why mr. lamb doesn't do this show anymore. he is still with the company. he still comes to work every day. , though, let's talk a little bit about what you saw. i want to ask you about one technology. 66, what is it? and you call it a game changer. guest: yeah, they call it a game changer. that is in their advertisement. it is a polymer. it is not particularly new. it is the kind of things the
company is doing with it now. kansas thatplant in was doing -- making this kind of new nylon pipe. at it, it looks like it really hard plastic. but it is extremely flexible and it is extremely strong and it is very lightweight. so on the back of the truck, they can carry almost a mile of pipe -- more than a mile of hype. so this nylon 66 creates all sorts of different products, but, you know, things like this -- it is another massive company that koch industries own. it is changing a lot of aspects of oil and gas. they can output pipes right on the ground. they can canary -- they can carry enormous amounts of
decides that would before have taken a lot of time. complicated things. and the signs on it i don't understand a lot of the signs on it, but seeing this factory and seeing the massive amounts of pipes they are able to produce on a very new technology, it was pretty impressive. host: talk about the testing that they did on this product because it was pretty extensive. guest: for this pipe, they want to be able to use the same kind of nylon pipe, whether it is in the west texas desert or the snowy mountains of north dakota. so they are doing is whether this -- weather tests, abuse-abrasion tests where they cattle are it -- walking across the pipes. and it is this extensive research.
they can to the rod in use it as marketing to show buyers all over the world the amazing things this technology can do. host: this technology and other do, they mustthey have to grapple with the regulations. what did they tell you about that? guest: the company as a whole has a policy that today just -- they don't like regulation. they don't like the idea of a government picking sides one way or the other. and they admit sometimes they benefit from regulations and there are plenty of times that they don't. they would gladly sacrifice all of their benefits from regulation to have the government, in their mind, out of the king picking business. yeah, there isw, also is a regulations in every
aspect. in all aspects of their company. and this is something that today -- that they are very conscious of. and it was down to kind of entry-level employees. this is a mantra that is worked into the company culture. host: adam, a republican. caller: yes, how are you doing? with this clean energy, -- [indiscernible] -- they don't have natural gas like we do. but, you know, i would like to ask you a question. can you have on your show someday to talk about the -- news media? today we only have five. we haveat is something talked about here on the show, and will continue to do so. ,, north carolina, independent -- emma, what come on it, independent caller.
caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i wanted to talk to your guest about the father of the koch brothers and his founding of the john birch society, which if you really wanted to have looked into that, we would have looked at the blue books on the anti-semitism and racist -- society wasthat founded on by their father. sost: emma, a couple caller bringing this up. was politics part of the terms you negotiated with koch industries to write this piece? guest: we talked about not really getting into politics and enormous amount. -- an enormous amount. and it is clear that through the family history, libertarian
politics has been a strong thing that they have played a part in. the father, fred koch, was a strong advocate of a lot of kind of different libertarian causes. several callers have referenced those. and the sons have taken the kind of libertarian bend and turn it into the modern tea party in a lot of ways. and that does come up in a lot of aspects of the company, and it is something that a lot of people there are pretty comfortable talking about. host: why is that? what is behind that, do you think? guest: i think this is kind of an ingrained culture. a lot of people who work for the company see the growth, they see the idea that they are growing because they are trying to produce products that people -- that bring value to people's lives. theyyou know, that is --
come in the minds of the employees, there is nothing to apologize for that. they are doing good things, they are bringing good things to american people and people all over the world. so, you know, they are very proud of what the are doing. and a lot of the companies that are kind of under the koch industries umbrella have been acquired and employees have worked at those individual companies for 20 years or more. the plant that i visited in the louisiana, almost all of the employees there -- more than 70% -- had been there for 20 years or longer, and there were an enormous amount that have been there for more than 30 years. and the company has been part of this community for a really long time. well before there were koch industries. host: you have a quote in the paper, one plant manager saying,
if you do figure out a way to not -- if you don't figure out a way so that you don't -- your position is no longer and you are not doing your job, could you explain that? guest: if you can't figure out a way to replace yourself, then somebody else will. and this is just kind of a part of that growth and -- and -- you know -- constant value bringing mentality. for instance, a factory and went to in nebraska, they were explaining -- i went to in nebraska, they were explaining that it was robotic, highly automated, and they were explaining that to compete with their counterparts in china, they basically have to be 20 times as productive. like them,e company they are sharing technology with their counterparts in china as well. so they have to be 20% as protective while also sharing
the same kind of information in technology that helped them be as productive as they are. they are constantly growing, constantly trying to one up themselves. in every aspect of what they are doing. host: we are taking a look inside koch industries with "popular mechanics" contributors -- contributor michael mooney. guest: please give this little hillbilly fella a chance to have his word with the -- to the koch brothers. ie kind of ask i want -- acts want is that you stop suppressing those who work for you and treat them fairly. i want you to share your food with the hungry, and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. close those who are cold, and don't hide from relatives who need your help. if you do these things, god will shed his own glorious light upon
you. all you need to do is stop oppressing the week and start making -- weak and stop making false accusations and spreading vicious rumors. feed the hungry. your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be bright as day. host: do the employees he talked to feel like they are being treated fairly -- employees you talked to feel like they are being treated fairly? me,t: if they are around they are probably not going to get me time in the room with the most the scuttle the employees they can find, but yes, the people i talked to were really glad to work for the company. the campus in wichita is pretty incredible. it is very, you know, there are all sorts of new cool technology. i joked that it is about as close to google as anybody in kansas gets paid and most -- gets. and most of the employees of the
company are, you know, they feel like they are being well paid, well compensated. they are encouraged to think about the company as their own and a lot of ways to make innovative decisions, to feel empowered, to make investments not like they would with their own finances at home, but in a way that they have almost unlimited resources. and if they can find something that will create growth, they can make a massive investment, hundreds of millions of dollars. and if they can find growth and value long-term, they are willing to do that. and they are told at every level. accountants are told they essentially have no budget. they can make unlimited investment, as long as they are good investments. i don't want to be in a situation where i am defending the koch brothers, but in a lot
of ways, their story really hasn't been told completely. they do give back a lot, too. in wichita, wichita state university has an anonymous amount of things that have come from the -- an enormous amount of things that have come from the koch brothers. they are building these massive innovative workshops that are just open to the community, not even just didn't. -- just students. they really do care about the communities they are in, and they feel like their story has been told. host: the "wall street journal," of his $11id that million in travel contributions last year, just $5 million went towards explicitly political purposes.
in kentucky, an independent caller. caller: i was wondering, he was talking about -- [indiscernible] dad got hisat their money from stalin over in russia, then he turned around and they took it over. and he was always against the poor -- [indiscernible] i was wondering if he had checked into that. and they do have another brother. host: mr. mooney. thet: yeah, they bought out other brother at some point for a large amount of money. i don't know about the history with russian connections or soviet connections. i don't know how that worked. i do know that very quickly fred koch built a company that was very expensive.
but was based on kind of innovative refining techniques. at the headquarters, they still areakind of a large museum dedicated to showing the history as they see it at least of the company, that includes the original products he was creating that shows this new refining technique. host: in los angeles, california, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. if the koch brothers really do care for their fellow man, why do they continue the war on solar in the midwest and in florida? tost: why do they continue -- host: the war on solar. solar energy. guest: i don't know that they have a war on solar energy. i think that if it was possible, they would get into solar energy. i think that they wore is on --
their war is on the idea of the government picking favorites. that the government is finally -- funneling money and one way or another. michigan, bob is a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning to both of you. guest: morning. caller: number one, michael, you know, there is constant negative comments made by senator harry read about the -- harry reid about the koch brothers. you are talking about how many employees they imply, how much -- the industrial base that they master. what would be the consequences or the impact if the koch brothers just disappeared tomorrow, in terms of employment and the manufacturing base?
number two, greta, why are you talking all the questions -- hogging all the questions? you are grandstanding up there rather than receiving calls from us folks out here. i thought that was the intent of the program. thank you both very much. have a great day. host: it certainly is the intent. we do our best to balance getting all the questions from you and laying the foundation for the conversation. michael mooney, go ahead. guest: the idea of a day without the kochs is an interesting concept. to start off, they would be 60,000 americans who would be unemployed. or looking for work. but with a company this big, there are good aspects, there are positive innovations, there are negative aspects, massive amounts of pollution. there is -- you know --
streamlining. with innovations, people do lose their jobs. jobs become obsolete very quickly. and if the individual can transition to something else, that individual is going to be unemployed. so it is something -- complicated and there are pros and cons. and the koch brothers themselves have kind of morphed into these bogeyman characters in politics because, as the quote from charles koch that you read earlier, they really haven't been in the business of telling their story or giving interviews. and the company grew really, really quickly. so they have kind of only been in the political business the way that they are now, you know, they only got into that relatively recently. and so, you know, the story kind of got out of there control. -- their control.
and that is part of the effort you see right now with charles koch making the rounds, during interviews. they are trying to put a different face on the company, explain -- you know -- social issues that they are advocating for now and that they have koch industry employs on tv and working in writing editorials and thinking about things like risen reform. -- prison reform. things that a lot of politicians are not talking about at all. host: areca, -- erica, an independent. caller: yes, i know there is a separation of church and state, but i'm curious if you had a chance to talk to the brothers regarding their religious beliefs. host: mr. mooney? guest: no, that didn't come out that much. again, i didn't talk to them directly.
but, you know, they are in kansas -- or charles koch is in kansas, the company is in kansas. there are a lot of religious people in kansas. but it didn't come up. it doesn't, at meetings -- doesn't come up at meetings. it doesn't, but the facilities. all the people i talked to, it really didn't come up in the interviews. host: marty and oregon. caller: you said something that was incredibly ridiculous. he said they would rather see regulations go away because -- [indiscernible] -- then you said their factories have to be 20 time more of2 -- times more productive because of china. why would that be? we run a tremendous trade deficits. idiocy toust complete say that they wouldn't want
regulations. , you saidael mooney that as well, right? they said, look, we benefit from certain regulations, and they would gladly give those regulations away for the principle of deregulation. that is at least what they say. i think we take them at face value on that. they seem pretty committed, and the company has worked pretty hard to get kind of this idea of government out of business in a lot of ways. and, you know, that is dangerous in a lot of ways potentially. in texas, there is all sorts of conflict with deregulation. but that is something that they advocate for. yeah, i think people would benefit from that and plenty of ways, too. host: connecticut's, an independent. caller: my question is, how come
we the people expect to have a fair election and the koch brothers -- they are pushing a republican candidate. how can this be? i have heard bernie sanders advocate against them. firean he fight fire with with koch brothers and their grandiose position? host: mr. mooney? guest: there are only so many people in the country who are worth $40 billion. they are kind of hard to come by. yet, if you are a political candidate and you have somebody supporting new who is worth that kind of money, that will be really hard to counter. but they would argue that, you know, a lot of their political contributions, in terms of national elections, works out
really well. they have not been able to pick any case. a lot of their candidates have not one. -- won. michael mooney, we have to leave it there. the house is about to gavel in. breaking news, the former house speaker dennis hastert is pleading guilty today in connection with paying hush money to a former associate. we bring you now live to the house floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] . signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than