tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 4, 2013 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
examiners that work these conditioners and send a factory single jointly trained rating board so they get a consistent accurate output. >> so those two areas are specialized in this particular -- >> yeah. >> for the oig, ms. mccauley, your inspections on this difficult medical conditions, how often is training and a lack of knowledge regarding policies and procedures a problem? how often is that? >> it certainly has shown itself to be a problem as a result of our inspections. ..
and ptsd. similar to what we heard mr. murphy mention about radiation in mobile, alabama. >> we haven't done exam the issue of the specialized, but certainly additional training would be a help in term adjudicating the claims. >> so the better-trained but the better specialized the workers the work and the work you have done, the more accurate they can timeliness they can process those particular claims? >> we would expect that, yes. >> great, thank you.
>> mr. murphy, to follow up on my previous questions about camp will june and mobil, alabama where you specialize in the particular areas. one of the problems i have seen over time being on this committee is particularly in some regional offices where the error rate is over 50%. when you look at the turnover rate in those area they might not be an employer of choice. and constantly training individuals in particularly without veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan with tbi and ptsd and mst, issues i think it's important that the the new system i like the idea when you look at the medical conditions. with the medical conditions you can move that anywhere around the country in the timely fashion so if there's a certain regional office that is specialized, such as camp will june, in louisville, kentucky to
deal with the issues. they can get an accurate decision in a timely manner. as i understand some of the concerns some of the vso have it's not done in a regional office. it's not done anyway when you look at the cases being broke toard other areas. they are not performing adequately. i would like to just, you know, see whether or not you would really consider looking at, you know, centers of excellence for those very complex cases since you can move it electronically once the system is up and completely running fully. >> we would consider the centers of excellence concept. in fact, my staff is going through now pulling numbers in terms of accuracy, rating capacity, et. cetera. on regional offices right now to identify are there some clear outliers that say this should be a ceo for ptsd, this should be for military sexual trauma.
we are going through the process now. we're beginning the process. it's not quick. it's going to take some time to do to make sure we get it right. it there are some centers of excellence tounge it right. there are some lessons. should i make them the center for all over the country. number two, if the answer is no, i should not. what are they doing different to get it right that i need to teach the other regional offices. either way it goes, the analysis we're doing is going yeeltd good things for us. back to the other part of your question the vso having some concern about the not being able to have that interaction and look at the file and review it. in the paper world, that was a problem. in the electronic world with the stakeholder entry we haven't placed and come up releases which allow them to see more of the claim file and the decision that is being made. they'll be able to perform that review from anywhere in the country regardless what regional office is working the file. >> i appreciate that answer. for me, i think the number one priority should be making that
sures are veterans are taken care of. not whether or not the claim is processed in the regional office. particularly that regional office is not performing the way it should be. so thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. and i have a another question. i know, mr. oh -- your testimony highlights that they approved policy and procedures to ensure more timely and accurate decisions to veterans of complex claims. setting aside the discussion we just had, about strong concerns and how they calculate accuracy, va's work toward better policies and procedure is welcome, but what the committee is hearing from the ig is that the regional office repeatedly failing to comply with the policies in place to directors, auditors, managers, it with be a the receipt call exercise. but to the veteran who
underrated or denied because of regional offices noncompliant. this is a complete failure. as i read the american legion testimony. for those in the quote for those veterans va accuracy might as well be zero. the inspector general consistently reports that the need for policy guidance oversight training and supervisor review and 17 of 20 recently respected officer remain on noncompliant. most of which were found to be repeatedly out of compliance. how are you going enforce compliance or put in to put it another way, what will be the penalty for noncompliance? >> i can't answer directly your question whab the penalty for noncompliance. that falls under the office of field operation and deputy undersecretary. however, i can tell you what we're doing to ensure compliance is happening and the solution is not going out yelling at
regional offices direct, directors and telling them you must follow the process. the solution to put a system in place that takes them down the path. and camp how we're doing that today is number one i talked about how we changed rules around ptsd. we no longer had to make a determination about the stressor and get a buddy statement saying what happened. we changed the rules so saying the veteran came in and feared in my life. and assess for ptsd. that's the way we handle from the rule side. when i look from the sm putting in place to ensure at the grassroot level take us back to the temporary 100% and the example there is in the system we nut place with vbms, you can no longer hit a button and move through a screen. you are forced to stop and put a routine future exam date in place and place if under control before they are allowed to press the button and move through the
screen. i forced the behavior without having to go out and push and discuss and come back and re-examine. i know, that it's happening because i can track it and see it on my system. and i report every two weeks. that every two week report everlast year i was seeing 600 case. now 50 cases. the reason for that is today there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 74 or 75 percent of our cases are electronic through vbms. we are working through the lapse of the paper. as we move to the electronic environment, the compliance rate will go up and then i'll see the number drop over time. so the answer to your question is, is i fix it by putting procedures in place that drive the ro in the right direction and put system i think i think if -- fixes in place that force the behavior to ensure the veteran gets the right decision. >> before i yield, e i remind you and remind everybody how many times secretary sat there and talked about accountability.
you do all the system call stuff you want. if you are not motivating people to do it, i know they are highly motivated people who want to do right by the veteran. there's a lack of accountability there. and across the board, but with that i'll yield to mr. oh -- >> thank i apologize for missing the second half of the hearing. i'll get ab update how you responded to the specific issues raised by ms. price and the veteran service organizations that were here. so just briefly bring up two issues. one, is in el paso at fort bliss we have 1800 cases, 1100 are backlogged at the derail site in
seattle. and so just a plea from cornel and william beau month from us in our office representing those soldiers, you know, whatever you can do provide additional intention and focus on that so we can get the folks through there. we have some associated problems with our wounded warrior transition unit there, and part is having the folks who are in this backlog, the bureaucratic loop. the second one ms. price medicationed she filed a fully developed claim and took us through every part what she went through to do that. we been pushing for fully qopped claims filed online. we think that come out of the committee. we can cut the wait time. in el paso right now for atm veteran is 450 days out waco
regional office down to something like 100 or less. i want to pick on what she said. i want do you address the concern it raised with me and others there may be a problem with fully developed claims and our ability to process them in a timely fashion and do so accurately. >> let me start with aye does. with understanding what you're talking about and fort hood and the department of army. >> fort bliss. >> sorry. >> yeah. we put definitive actions in place you'll see the numbers at that regional office start going in the right direction. first of which is in april all of the employees at the seattle d -- broarking we shut down gives an immediate trained capacity to go and start working in the cases. two, is in a may of tbirt we hired an additional 36 raiders in that regional office.
in may of 2013, army reserve personnel were activated and deployed in seattle to help it in getting these cases through quicker. staff at the regional office has been working mandatory overnight and right after the holidays they will resume mandatory overtime through 2014 provided the funding is available us. one other item we have done is we had capacity in providence to take some of those cases. we're working faster so 250 cases per month are being brokered to providence in order to help take some of the pressure off the derail site in seattle. so i think in the coming months you'll see drastic changes in there. one other comment about the process in general. to look at the process and say it's merely a simple claim is to
call complex merely a complex claim and call a complex claim a simple one. as a result, a timely claim going through the process is measured at 295 days. not the 125 days like we see for the traditional bundle. the second part was about ms. price and the fdc and i guess i'm not sure what it is you're asking me there, congressman. >> i guess the concern was apologize again. i missed almost everything you've had to say in response to the stories we've heard earlier. you may have already answered many of the concerns -- raised. one of those was ms. price, i believe before transitioning out had already prepared and filed a
fully developed claim. and yet he an incredibly arduous, lodge battle to get that claim adjudicated in a satisfactory way. and so it causes concern for me and others when we're trying to direct veterans to file those fully-developed claims online and telling them they can get those claims resolved and in some cases close to 100 days versus the average el paso 4050 days. a story like this gives me pause. i want to know whether it is truly exceptional or whether there's more to that. she seemed to indicate from other veterans that she had met with and assisted she's seeing similar cases to hers. and so just wanted to get your quick feedback on that. again, if you've already answered it or would like to an it in more detail at the followup meeting i would be happy to meet thin. if you could talk about how exceptional a case like that is.
>> i have to say discussing in individual veteran and veterans circumstance. what i can tell you is this based on the time frame that ms. price submitted her claim in 2009, when we were receiving fully developed claims at less than 2% to the today where we're receiving 27% of the claims. they're going through with our highest priority and being tracked and monitored on a national basis and national level. so my point is this, the experience that she saw is by no means typical of the process usually in today when the claims are going through in 115, 120 days through the fully developed claim process. other things that happened in the early stages of it, we had a high rate of those claims that were entered in the to fully developed claim process and various reasons right, wrong, or otherwise were removed from the process and put through the normal channel. we track and monitor that routinely now to make sure a fully developed claim that comes in maintains its path through the fully developed claim process. there are specific rules that
will pull that claim out that have process. but now we put the control measures in place, it's not being used or abused. it's not being used to the rate it was when the fully-developed claim process was new. >> my time is expired. i yield back. >> thank you. members, are there any further questions? on behalf of the subcommittee, thank you all for your testimony. you are now excused. i thank everyone for being here with us today. ensuring our veterans receive timely and appropriate decisions regarding their service connected claim is a top priority for the committee and the department. it is unacceptable for the price that -- to be the accuracy of those decisions. will certainly be a seeking more information in the near future on areas discussed as a va continues to march toward the secretary's 2015 goals. i would like to once again thank our witnesses for being here today. i asked unanimous consent the members have five legislative
[inaudible conversations] treasury secretary talk about wall street regulations tomorrow morning in washington. he'll speak at the pugh charitable trust about the mrs.'s efforts to protect taxpayers, create jobs, and regulate financial -- markets. it starts at 8:45 eastern live on c-span2. at 9:30 tomorrow morning on c-span2, a house energy subcommittee hearing a natural gas drilling. the committee will look at how the industry is regulated, how it affects electricity rates, and environmental issues. and in the afternoon, a senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy speak at the second annual conference. he'll talk about balancing national security and civil liberty. that starts at 1:15 eastern also on c-span2.
>> the government is doing this and obamacare is terrible. and so those were the guys i wanted to talk to. they were quites with the leaflet. the ideas. so i said to them, you know, is your stuff? they said who are you? i said actually i'm a academic. i'm a researcher and doing research on these organizations. these ideas and trying to understand the guys about it. and i studied men who believe this stuff. and they, you know, a punch of them looked at me suspiciously and said asked me questions. and i just said, look, here is what i am. you know, i don't get. so but here is my job. i want to understand how you guys see the world. you will not convince me and i
will not convince you. it's off the table. i want to understand why you think the way you do. "downward mobility: racial and gender-equality." on the fear, anxiety, and rage of angry white men. sunday night on 9:00 on "after words." back -- part of booktv on c-span2. president obama said today that income inequality is, quote, the defining challenge of our time. to close the growing gap between the rich and poor in america he called for increase in minimum wage. the president's remarks came in a speech in the neighborhood of washington, d.c. [applause] >> good morning! good morning, everybody. thank you couch for being here. i want to thank you all for joining us. members of congress, members of the administration, mayor here
as well as other mayors. i want to thank the arc for hosting us today. we are thrilled to have the president to discuss one of the gravest challenges of our time. raising inequality. we're particularly honored to do so as it separates the tebt anniversary this year. behind all the policy is a simple idea expanding opportunity for all americans. expanding the middle class is the best way to grow and grow stronger. i know, that principle is critical and not just for grant politician. it is mattered so much in my own
life. i grew up in a suburb of boston. the child of two immigrants who come from india. decades earlier. we lifed in a house in bedford, massachusetts a middle class family. when i was five, my parents got divorced and my dad left. my mother was on her own having never held a job before. she faced going back to india, or going on welfare to support her two young children. in india, we would have been marked stigmatized. it was unheard of to get divorced back then. she knew our life opportunities would be limited. she made that tough choice. she stayed. we stayed. we were on welfare. we were on food stamps. we received housing vouchers to help pay for rent. but because of a series of events we were able to remain in bedford and i was able to go to the public schools. my mom eventually got at the job at the travel agent, and by the time i was 11, i'm proud to say
that she bought her own house in bedford, massachusetts. my mom is an amazing woman who sacrificed a great deal for her children. but i know i'm here also because a lot of people were -- expand opportunity. it's hard a little bit to share my story. but i know we live in cynical times. it's easy to dismiss the fights in washington as partisan games. but there are kids growing up today who have big dreams despite fuff circumstances. it's not a game for them. we can't forget that the decisions people make here matter. they can determine whether everyone has a fair shake or not. i'm grateful to work at an organization like the center for american progress. committed to expanded that circle so children today have hope for a better circumstance. a better future than their circumstances. but i am even more grateful that we have a president who lives and breathes a commitment to an
america that expands the mimgdz class, gives people a fair shot, and makes sure no matter where you come from, you can make it if you try. i know, it sounds a little corn any. that is what the american dream is about. president obama told the country in his state of the union this year it is our generation's task to reignite the true engine in america's economic growth. a rising, thriving middle class. i cannot agree more. the country has been through a lot. but i'm grateful that we have a president who, in every decision he's faced, on the budget battle, long fought battles, economic growth policies, and even health care he has been focused on expanding opportunity for all americans. and i think it's in part because he's thinking of the kids who need that fair shot to ensure they reach their potential. he knows we're all better off when they do. and for that, i'm very grateful
as well. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great, great privilege to introduce to you, the president of the united states. ♪ [cheering and applause] ♪ [cheering and applause] >> thank you! thank you! thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you! thank you, everybody. please, please, have a seat. thank you so much. well, thank you, neera for the wonderful introduction. and sharing a story that resonated with me. there were a lot of parallels in my life, and resonated with some of you, probably. in over the past ten years, the center for american progress has done incredible work to shape the debate over expanding opportunities for all americans. and i could not be more grateful to cast not only for giving me a
lot of good policy ideas but giving me a lot of staff. [laughter] my friend john ran my transition. my chief of staff, dennis, did e tended cap. you are obviously doing a good job training folks. i also want to thank all of the members of congress and my administration who are here today for the wonderful work they do. i want to thank mayor and everyone here at the arc for having me. this center, which i've been to quite a bit, and had a chance to see some of the great work that is done here. and all the non-profits that call the arc home offer access to everything from education to health care to the safe shelter from the streets. which means you're harnessing the power of community. to expand opportunity for folks here in d.c.
and your reflects the tradition that run through our history. the blood vessel we're greater together than on our own. over the last two months washington has been dominated by some contentious debates. i think it's fair to say. and between a reckless shut down by congressional republicans in an effort to repeal the affordable care act, and admitly poor execution on my administration's part on implementing the latest stage of the new law. it's not surprising the frustrations with the are at the all-time high. we know the frustrations run deeper than the most recent political battles. their frustration is rooted in their own daily battles fop make
ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement. it's rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hay work, the deck stacked against them. it's rooted in the fear they kids won't be better off than they were. they may not follow the constant back and forth in washington or all the policy details. but they experience in a very personal way the relentless decades long trend that i want to spend some time talking about today. that is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardizeed middle class america's basic bargain. if you work hard, you have a change to get ahead. i believe this is the defining challenge of our time. making sure our economy works
for every working american. it's why i ran for president. it was the center of last year's campaign. it drives everything i do in this office. and i know i've raised this issue before, and some will ask why i raise the issue again right now. i do it because the outcome of the debate we're having right now, whether it's health care or the budget or reforming our housing and financial systems. all of these things will have real practical imply cage for every american. and i am convinced that the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in america where opportunity is real. now, the premise that we're all created equal is the opening line in the american story. and while we don't promise equal
outcomes, we've strived to deliver equal opportunity. the idea that success doesn't depend on being born in to wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. with every chapter we've added to the story, we've worked hard to put those words in to practice. it was lincoln a poor man's son who started land grant -- that anyone can learn something new. when apartment fought for an eight-hour workday. forprotections for workers. ..
as a result of america built the largest middle class the world has ever known and for the three decades after world war ii it was the engine of our prosperity. now we can't look at the past through rose-colored glasses. the economy didn't always work for everyone. racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty or out of opportunity. women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid
professions and it was only through painstaking struggle that more women in i nor days and americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy. nevertheless, during the post-world war two years the economic ground felt stable and secure for most americans. and the future looks brighter than the past. and for some that meant following in your old man's footsteps at the local plant and you knew that a blue-collar job would buy you a home and a car and maybe a vacation once in a while, health care and a reliable pension. for others it meant going to college. in some cases may be the first in your family to go to college. and it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.
now it's true that those at the top even in those years claimed a much larger share of income than the rest. the top 10% consistently took home one third of our national income. but that kind of inequality to place in a dynamic dynamic market in an economy where everyone's wages and incomes were growing. and because of upward mobility that guy on the factory floor would picture his kid would run the company someday. but starting in the late 70's, the social compact began to unravel. technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. a more competitive world let companies shift jobs anywhere and is good manufacturing jobs
automated or headed offshore workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits. as values of community broke down and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied in washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. as the trickle-down ideology became more prominent taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments, things that made us all richer like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. and for certain period of time time we could ignore this weakening economic foundation in part because more families were relying on two earners as women enter the workforce. we took on more debt financed by a juiced up housing market but when the music stopped and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever
cushion they had left. and the result is an economy that has become her family on equal and families that are more insecure. i will just give you a few statistics. since 1979 when i graduated from high school, our productivity was up to more than 90%. but the income of the typical family has increased by less than 8%. since 1979 our economy has more than doubled in size but most of that growth has been flowing to a fortunate few. the top 10% no longer takes in one third of our income. it now takes half whereas in the past the average ceo made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today's ceos
now makes 273 times more. meanwhile the family and the top 1% has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family which is a record for this country. so the basic bargain at the heart of our economy is broken. this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to america's market economy. across the developed world inequality has increased. some of you may have seen just last week the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. how can it be he wrote that it's not an news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure but it is news when the stock market loses two points? but this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a
people. understand we have never begrudged success in america. we aspire to it. we at meyer folks who start new businesses, create jobs and invent the products that enrich our lives and we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. in fact, we have often -- more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason, because we were convinced that america is a place for even if you are born with nothing with a little hard work you can improve your own situation of her time and build something better to leave to your kids. as lincoln once said, while we do not promote or oppose war upon capital we do was to allow a homeless man an equal chance to get rich with everyone else. the problem is alongside increased inequality we have seen diminished levels of upward
mobility in recent years. a child worn at the top 20% has about a two in three chance of staying at or near the top. a child born into the bottom 20% has a less than one in 20 shot of making it to the top. he is 10 times likelier to stay where he is. in fact's assistant show only are levels of income inequality rank near countries like jamaica and argentina, it is harder today for a child born here in america to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies countries like germany or france. they have greater mobility than we do, not less. and the idea that so many children are born into poverty on the wealthiest nation on earth is heartbreaking enough but the idea that a child may
never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care or a community that use her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. we are a better country than this. so let me repeat, the combined trends of increased inequality and the decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the american dream, our way of life in what we stand for around the globe. and it is not simply a moral claim that i'm making. there are practical consequences to rising inequality in reduced mobility. for one thing these trends are bad for our economy. one study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality.
and that makes sense. when families have less to spend that means businesses have fewer customers and households racked up greater mortgage and credit card debt. meanwhile concentrated wealth of the top is less likely to result in consumer spending that drives our economy and together with blacks regulation continue with risky speculative bubbles. rising inequality and declining mobility are also bad for families and social cohesion. not just because we tend to trust their institutions less but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there is greater inequality greater inequalities associated with less mobility between generations. that means it not just temporary. the effects last and it creates a vicious cycle. for example by the time she turns three years old a child organ to a low income home hears
30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family. which means by the time she starts school she is already behind. that deficit can compound itself over time. and finally rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy. ordinary folks can't write massive campaign checks or high-priced lobbyists and lawyers to secure policies that tilt the playing field in their family and at everyone else's expense. so people get the bad taste that the system is rigged. and that increases cynicism and polarization and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government. this is an issue that we have to
tackle. if in fact the majority of americans agree that our number one priority is to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for all americans to question his why ask washington washington -- why his washington consistently failed to act? i think a big reason is the myths that have developed around the issue of inequality. first there is the myth but this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority people. this isn't a broad based problem or a black problem or hispanic problem for native american problem. it's true the painful legacy of discrimination means native americans and latinos are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity. if higher unemployment, higher poverty rates, and it's also
true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, so we are going to need a strong application of antidiscrimination laws and we are going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows and we are going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps. [applause] but here is an important point. the decades long shifts in the economy have heard all groups. poor and middle-class, inner-city and rural folks, men and women and americans of all races. and as a consequence some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility that were once attributed to the urban poor and that's a particular problem for the inner-city, single-parent households or drug
abuse. it turns out now we are seeing that pop up everywhere. a new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups, these are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else. the gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids in black kids. kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle or upper-class parents to go through time and their parents have no income. the fact is this, the opportunity gap in america is now as much about class as it is about race and that gap is
growing. so for we are going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people we have got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concerned. and we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address in a meaningful way somehow the interest of the deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. [applause] second we need to dispel the myth that growing an economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict. this should actually work in concert. we know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out when growth is more widely shared and we know beyond
a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether third, we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about producing inequality -- reducing inequality. it's true that government cannot prevent all the downsides of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now and some of those forces are also some of the things helping us grow and it's also true that some programs in the past like welfare before it was reformed were sometimes poorly designed and created disincentives to work. we have also seen how government time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering letters to the middle class. investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and the minimum wage has all contributed to rising
standards of living for massive numbers of americans. [applause] likewise when previous generations declared every citizen of this country deserves a basic measure of security a floor if through which they could not fall. we have millions of americans that gave millions more the confidence to aspire to something better by taking a risk on a great idea. without social security nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty. today fewer than one in 10 do. before medicare only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance. today virtually all of you. and because we have strengthened that safety net and expanded pro-work and profamily tax credits like the onion -- unearned tax credit the poverty rate has fallen by 40% since the 1960s.
these didn't just make us a better -- it reaffirmed that we are a great country. we can make a difference on this. in fact that is our generation's task, to rebuild america's economic and civic foundation to continue the expansion of opportunity for this generation and the next generation. [applause] and like neera i take this personally. i'm only here because this country educated my grandfather on the g.i. bill. when my father left and my mom hit hard times trying to raise my sister and me while she was going to school this country made sure we didn't go hungry. when michelle the daughter of a shift worker at a water plant and a secretary wanted to go to college, just like me, this
country help us afford it until we could pay it back. so it what drives me as a grandson, a son and a father, as an american is to make sure that every striving hard-working optimistic kid in america has the same incredible chance that this country gave me. [applause] it has been the driving force between everything we have done in these past five years and over the course of the next year and for the rest of my presidency that is where you should expect mike administration to focus all our efforts. [applause] now you will be pleased to know this is not a state of the union address. [laughter]
and many of the ideas that can make the biggest difference in expanding opportunity i have resented before but let me offer a few key principles, just a roadmap that i believe should guide us with our legislative agenda and their mistreated efforts. to begin with we have to continue to relentlessly push a growth agenda and it may be true that in today's economy growth alone does not guarantee higher wages and incomes. we have seen that but what's also jirgas we can't tackle inequality of the economic pie is shrinking or stagnant. the fact is if you are progressive and you want to help the middle class are the working poor you still have to be concerned about competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that spurs private sector investment. that is why from day one we have worked to get the economy growing and help our businesses hire and thanks to their resilience and innovation they
have created nearly 8 million jobs over the last 40 for months. now we have to grow the economy even faster. we have to keep working to make america a magnet for good middle-class jobs to replace the ones we have lost in recent decades. jobs in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure and technology. that means simplifying our corporate tax tax code in a way that closes wasteful loopholes, ends incentives to ship jobs overseas -- [applause] by broadening the base we can lower rates to encourage more companies to hire and use some of the money we save to create the jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges and airports and all the infrastructure in our businesses it means a trade agenda but rose exports and works for the middle class. been streamlining regulations that are outdated or unnecessary enemies coming together around a responsible budget one that grows our economy faster right
now and treats her long-term deficits, one that and wines sequester cuts that haven't made a lot of sense. [applause] and then frees up resources to invest in things like scientific research that has always unleashed new innovation in new industry. when it comes to our budget we should not get stuck in a stale debate from two or three years ago. a relentlessly growing deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than a rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit [applause] so, that is step one towards restoring mobility making sure our economy is growing faster. step two is making sure we empower more americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly
competitive local economy. we know that education is the most important predictor of income today so we launched a race to the top in our schools. we are supporting states that every standards for teaching and learning. we are pushing for a redesign of high schools of graduate markets with the technical training and apprenticeships and demand high-tech skills that can lead directly to a good job in the good middle-class life. we know it's harder to find a job today without higher education so we have helped more student go to college with grants and loans that go further than before. we have made it more practical to repay those loans and today more students are graduating from college than ever before. we are also pursuing an aggressive strategy to promote innovation that reigns in tuition costs. we are going to lower costs are young people are not burdened by enormous debt when they make the right decision to get higher
education and next week michelle and i will bring together college presidents and non-profits to lead a campaign to help more low-income students attend and succeed in college. [applause] but, while higher education may be the surest path to the middle class is not the only way. we should offer people the best technical education in the world that is why we have worked to connect local businesses with community colleges so workers young and old can earn -- learned the new skills that earned them more money. and i have also embraced an idea that i know i'll let you at the center for american progress have championed and by the way republican governors in a couple of states have championed and that is making high-quality preschool available to every child in america. [applause]
we know that kids in these programs grow up likely to get more education, earn higher wages, for more stable families of their own and starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one. and we should invest in map. we should give all of our children that chance. as we empower our young people for future success the third part of this middle-class economics is empowering our workers. it's time to ensure collective arguing laws function as they are supposed to so employees have a more level playing field to organize for a better deal for for workers and better wages for the middle class. it's time to pass the paycheck fairness act so women will have more tools to -- [applause] it's time to pass that
unemployment -- employment nondiscrimination act so employees can't be fired for who they are or who they love. [applause] and even though we are bringing manufacturing jobs that to america, we are creating more good paying jobs in education, health care and business services, we know that we are going to have greater and greater portion of our people in the service sector and we know that there are airport workers and fast food workers and nurse assistants and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty. that is why it's well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when harry truman was in office. [applause]
they shouldn't be an ideological question. now it was adam smith, the father free-market economics, who once said they who feed, clothe and launched the whole body that people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves well fed, clothed and watched and for those of you who don't speak old english -- [laughter] let me translate. it means if you work hard, you should make a decent living. [applause] if you work hard you should be able to support a family. we although all know the arguments that have been used against the higher minimum wage. some say it actually hurts
workers and businesses will be less likely to hire. there's no solid evidence that higher minimum wage cost jobs in research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boost short-term economic growth. [applause] others argue that if we raise the minimum wage governors will pass those costs onto consumers. but a course of businesses small and large argued differently. already there are extraordinary companies in america that provide decent wages, salaries and benefits and training for their workers and deliver a great product to consumers. north carolina offers childcare and sick leave. a the company my superiors used to run cultivates a good work balance. there are companies out there that do work to write by the workers and they recognize
paying a decent wage actually helps their bottom line and reduces turnover. it means workers have more money to spend, to save and they eventually they may start a business of their own. a broad majority of americans agree we should raise the minimum wage. that is why last month voters in new jersey decided to become the 20 state to raise there is even higher that is why yesterday the d.c. council voted to do it too. i agree with those voters. [applause] ..
we put forward new plans to help the communities and their residents. because we have watched cities like this like my own town of chicago revamp themselves. if we give more cities the tools to do it, not handouts but a handup, cities like detroit can do it too. so in a few weeks, wealth announce the first of these promise zones. urban and rural communities where we're going support local efforts focused on a national goal nap is the child's course in life should not be determined by the zip code he is born in. but the strength of his work ethic.
[applause] >> and we're also going have do more for the long-term unemployment. you know, for people who have been out of work for more than six months, often through no fault of their own, life is a catch-22. companies won't give the résume an honest look because they have been laid off so long. they have been laid off so long because companies won't give their résume an honest look. that's why earlier this year i challenged ceos from america's best companies to give these americans a fair shot. next month many of them will join us at the white house for an announcement about this. fiflt, we've got to revamp retirement to protect americans in their golden years to make sure another housing collapse doesn't steal the savings in their homes. we have to strengthen our safety new for a new age so it doesn't just protect people who have a run of bad luck from falling in to poverty but propels them back
out of poverty. today nearly half of full-time workers and 80% of i'm workers don't have a pension or retirement account at their job. about half of all household don't have any retirement savings. so we're going to have to do more to encourage private savings and shore up the promise of social security for future generations. and remember, these are problems as we make to one another. we don't do it to replace the free market. we do it to reduce risk in our society. by giving people the ability to take a chance and catch them if they fall. one study shows more than half of americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives. think about that. it's not an isolated situation. more than half of americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty. that's why we have nutrition assistance or the program known
as s.n.a.p. because it makes a difference for a mother who is working, but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids. that's why we have unemployment insurance, because it makes a difference for a father who lost his job and out there looking for a new one we can keep a roof over his kids' head. christmas time is no time for congress to tell more than one million americans they have lost their unemployment insurance. which will happen if congress doesn't act. [applause] the point is, these programs are not typically hammocks for people to just lie back and relax. these programs are almost always temporary means for hard-working people. to stay afloat. while they try to find a new job. or going school to retrain themselves for the jobs that are
out there. or sometimes just to cope with a bast bad luck. the progressives should be open to reforms that actually strengthen these programs and make them more responsive to a 21st century economy. for example, we should be willing to look at fresh ideas to revamp unemployment disability programs. to encourage faster, and higher rates of reemployment without cutting benefits. we shouldn't weaken fundamental protections built over generations. because given the constant churn in today's economy, and the disability that many of our friends and neighbors live with, they need it more than ever. we should strengthen and adapt it to new circumstance so they work even better. but understand that these programs of social insurance benefit all of us. because we don't know when we might have a run of bad luck. [applause] we don't know when we might lose
a job. of course, for decades there was one gap in the safety net that did more than anything else to expose working families to the insecurities of today's economy. mainly our broken health care system. that's why we fought for the affordable care act. because 14,000 americans -- [applause] because 14,000 americans lost their health insurance every single day. and even more died each year because they didn't have health insurance at all. we did it because millions of families who thought they had coverage were driven in to bankruptcy by out of pocket costs they didn't realize would be there. tens of millions of our fellow citizens couldn't get any coverage at all. ever all the --
health care is the most shocking and inhumane. not anymore. [applause] in the three years since we passed this law, the share of americans with insurance is up. the growth of health care costs are down to their vowest -- slowest rate in 50 years. more people have insurance, and more have new benefits and protections. hundreds of millions americans who have gained the right for a free preventive care like mammograms and contraception. to every american who won't go broke when they get sick because their insurance can't limit their care anymore. more people without health insurance have gained insurance. more than 3 million young americans have been able to stay on their parent's plan. more than half a million americans and counting were poised to get coverage started
on january 1st. some for the very first time. and it is these numbers, not the ones of any poll, that will ultimately determine the fate of this law. [applause] hours lost because somebody couldn't make it to work and healthier kids with better performance in school and young years who have the freedom to go out there and try a new idea. those are the things that ultimately reduce a source of inequality. and help ensure more americans get the start they need to succeed in the future. i've acknowledged more than once we don't roll out part of the law as well as we should have. but the laws already working in major ways that benefit millions of americans. right now. even as we have begun to slow the rise of health care costs, which is good for family
budgets, good for federal and state budgets, and good for the budgets of businesses small and large. but this law is going work. for the sake of our economic security. it needs to work. [applause] and as people and states as different as california and kentucky sign up every single day for health insurance, signing up in droves, they're proving they they want that economic security. you know, the senate republican leaders think they're going able to repeal it someday. he might want to check with the more than 60,000 people in his home state who are already set to finally have coverage that frees them from the fear of financial ruin and lets them afford to take their kids to see a doctor! [applause] so let me address the elephant in the room here.
the seeming inability to get anything done in washington these days. i realized we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility. this year or next year or the next five years. but it is important we have a serious debate about these issues. for the longer than current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many americans are feeling right now. that they'll never be able to repay the debt they took on to go college. they'll never be able to save enough to retire. they'll never see their own children land good job that supports a family. and that's why even as i will keep on offering my own ideas
for expanding opportunity. i'll keep challenging and welcome those who oppose my idea to offer their own. if republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more lotters of opportunity to the poor. let's hear them! i want to know what they are. if you don't think we should raise the minimum wage, let's hear your idea to increase peoples' earnings. if you don't think every child should have access to preschool. tell us what you would do differently to give them a better shot. if you still don't like obamacare, i know you don't. even though it's built on market-place idea and choice and competition and private sector. you should explain how sectly you cut costs and cover more people and make insurance more secure. you owe it to the american people to tell us what you are for. not just what you're against.
[applause] [applause] that way we can have a vigorous and meaningful debate. that's what the american people deserve. that's what the times demand. it's not enough anymore to just say we should get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of them. for our experience tells us that is just not true. look, i've never believed that government can solve every problem. or should. and neither do you. we know that ultimately our strength is grounded in our people. individuals out there striving, working. making things happen. it depends on community. a rich and generous sense of
community. that's what the core what happens happens here at the arc here every day. you understand turning back rising inequality requires parents taking responsibility for their kids. kids taking responsibility to work hard. and requires religious leaders who mobilize their congregation to rebuild neighbors, block by block. requires civic organizations that can help train the unemployed, with businesses for the jobs of the future. it requires companies and ceos to set an example by providing these wages, salaries, and benefits for their workers. and a shot for somebody who is down on his or her luck. we know that is our strength, our people, our community, our businesses. but government can't stand on the sidelines in our efforts. because government is us. it can and should reflect our
deepest values and commitments. and if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everyone, and gives every child in this country a fair chance of success, then e remain confident that the futurer still looks brighter than the past. and the best days for this country we love are still ahead. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] thank you! [applause] treasury secretary talks about wall street regulations in washington. he'll speak at the pugh charitable trust about the administration's efforts to protect taxpayers, create jobs, and regulate financial markets. that starts at 8:45 eastern live
on c-span two. and at 9:30 tomorrow morning, on c-span2, a house energy subcommittee hearing on a natural gas drilling. the committee will look how the industry is regulated and how it affects electricity rates and also environmental issues. and tomorrow afternoon, senate judiciary committee chairman speaks at the second annual conference at the group human rights first. he'll talk about balancing national security and civil liberties. that starts at 1:15 eastern here on c-span2. >> i didn't get the idea for the dummies series. i had an idea to do a beginning book about computers, about it specifically. i kind of inspired myself to do that u just daling with people in the magazine editing job i had had. being on the radio at that time. and being out in the public and talking to people about computers. it was obviously that people
wanted to learn more but that the material we had available at the time just wasn't doing the job. we had beginner box on how to use computers. but they sucked. they just didn't have that, you know, they were condescending. they were pate nice. the author was arrogant. well, you'll never get the stuff anyway or iowa, look, this is cool. people didn't want to know that. they wanted to use a computer. they planned to publish one book, and even then there was some reluctancy with the title when the owner found out they had this book. he's like you can't offend the reader. cancel that book. and unfortunately, well, or fortunately, 5,000 copies came off the press. originally it was going to be 7500. but they stopped it at 5,000. and they figured, okay, we'll shove it in the marketplace and go away. at the time, not all the bookstores even wanted to have
it. they were said no. we don't want to ib cult our reader. we don't want that. but even with just 5,000 copies out there, this is before the internet, this is before, you know, when we had bookstores. real bookstores people went in to. they came in and it was gone in a week it was soldout because people wanted it. it was like they saw it and said that's for me. i'm a dummy. i want that book. >> today there are more than 250 million "for dummies books" in print. find out more this weekend as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of idaho. saturday at noon on c-span two and sunday at 5:00 on c-span 3. you're watching c-span2, with politics public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on
booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules on our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." and right now on c span 2 the conversation on iranian nuclear program with california congressman duncan hunter. >> we want to welcome for the " continues.uncan hunter. republican in california sits on the house armed services committee. let me begin with a raw nucleart time deal a cnd the what's post this morning. this is how they begin their sty
sits on the armed services committee. doubtless they root, a surge of diplomacy and an outburst of violence -- out of beirut, a urge of diplomacy. host: i do not think anything has changed. keep enriching, even if they stop short of being able to enrich to a nuclear capability, they will be building up ballistic missiles and their ability to reach further and further and hit southeast europe and the different parts of israel. they stop their enrichment capability, just short of what is permissible under the new deal they will be able to sprint to that in a month or two and armed -- and armed ballistic weapons, which they are still making.
i don't think this does anything except give a leg up and some cover in the international community. that is what this is doing. it is not -- we are not going towards a safer world because they are not having to do anything with this deal. until sixen starts months out. this is not a good deal for the u.s. where the free world. host: what about it don't you like? not do anything. i would make them show us that they have stopped everything. i would open into the iaea, to twoto the russians, international partners. they have to start building centrifuges and spinning them and enriching. with all that is verified, we say ok, we will lower sanctions. you do not lower sanctions first and pray that he ran will do the right thing for once -- pray will do the right thing. they have proved for the last 30
years or four years they do not. it seems like they would be falling. it would be ridiculous to think they will be different this time just because of the last generation -- whenever the last generation they have not been honest. congressman gregory meeks of new york, a democrat on the foreign affairs committee was on the show yesterday. he is in favor of this deal. i want to show you what he had to say and get your reaction. [video clip] >> when you look at the agreement in its totality and how it is negotiated, with the transparency that has never and where were would be had we not had this, there was nothing to stop iran from continuing to enrich and move toward a nuclear weapon. this agreement stops that. that is significant. in return, we are not removing the sanctions that were based on
the run -- that were placed on iran by congress. a billion dollars to $9 billion of relief for humanitarian and medicine purposes. that is miniscule compared to the oil sanctions continue. iran continues to lose $30 billion or $40 billion. or $9 billion of relief is nothing in comparison to the sanctions in place. host: your thoughts? guest: with all due respects to congressman meeks, the state department said the next step is a continuation of technical discussions. we can tee get the implementation of the agreement. this technical discussions are work through, and then the clock starts. there is no deal right now. iran is having to do absolutely
nothing. america and our partners are giving them stuff, relieving sanctions and being nice and making overtures. they have had to do nothing. there is no deal. is still enriching and building ballistic missiles and the ability to launch nuclear tipped only -- to launch nuclear capability. now,if they stop enriching in two months when there are ayatollah says we want nuclear 5apability, it takes them 1. months together. that is not acceptable. "usa today"ote in that the race to halt the nuclear ambitious iran is reminiscent of america's sprint to help north korea's department of weapons. iran constitutes a greater threat. you say to think of iran as any differently than north korea
would be foolish. guest: iran is a much more dangerous foe. north korea has tended to keep it in check. they have russia, south korea. north korea is kept in check by china's ambitions. does not have that. there is no check on iran. there is no india-pakistan check. iran has no check but the u.s. and the sanctions. there is no country besides israel in a community that has or will have the thinking ability. that is why iran is -- to be frank, with iran's government driven by radical extremist muslims, that is different from a self-preservation mindset that north korea has. the old soviet model, that is different from iran's government. the iranians are still
sponsoring terrorism, syria, ir aq, all over. these sanctions do nothing towards that. iran has not changed and there is no check. they are more dangerous. for you blow yourself up your god, that makes you more dangerous than self-preservation in most countries. honest in wanting to stay alive, i don't think have that.ns a lot of folks in afghanistan and iraq do not blowing themselves up and strapping bombs on kids, that is who you're dealing with with iran. they're not rational actors. host: congressman, after the he quit his attack, job and joined the marine corps and served in iraq. guest: twice. host: where?
fallujah in 2004 in afghanistan in 2007. host: is where with -- is war with iran inevitable? guest: i hope not. a ground war in iran would be horrible. people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them from getting this nuclear capability. i don't think it is inevitable, but if you have to hit iran you deal with technical -- titus gold nuclear devices and that the back a decade -- if you have to hit iran, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade. or with an air campaign. think america knows its limitations in that area and what we can do. we want to spend 20 years thereafter we tear it down to so it is not run by a
to radical leader like has happened in iraq and afghanistan. you have some crazy guys rented governments. what we have done to set that up has played a role in those countries not being great actors. host: congressional action on this. john kerry and the white house have asked congress not to go ahead and vote on a new round of sanctions against iran. secretary of state will testify next week before the foreign affairs committee. will congress wait until after he testifies? guest: congress should not wait. what you have in this administration and the bubble that exists, they are in love with the idea of saying that they did something. whether it works or not, they are blind to reality. we should proceed with sanctions, let the iranians know this is not un-american deal, this is a kerry-obama deal. and that the rest of congress is
not behind them. the u.s. senate want to impose sanctions. this will be hard for them to say we are going to trust iran and hope they do the right thing for the first time in 40 years. host: william is up first in ohio, democratic caller. theer: congressman, evidence that world trade center building 7 was wrought down with explosives is real and proven. how much more trust does congress have to lose before it faces reality and acknowledges the need for a new investigation into building 7's destruction? guest: i don't think you need investigation. the way that those towers were brought down was by radical islamic terrorists. her investigation has show that. host: did you read the 9/11 investigation? guest: i did not. host: you think it was adequate.
lake placid, florida. caller: good morning. ira member in the past, -- i whenber in the past president clinton was dealing with china. they had a problem with missiles and their guidance systems. clinton. deals with it appeared that clinton gave them a guidance system for their cbm's and they were able to launch their icbm's. . with accuracy. it was not long after that, a few months after that, the minister of war was threatening the u.s. over taiwan. have got to remember, when madeleine albright went to north with theirealt over nucleart time
and was supposedly -- they wanted uranium for a nuclear power plant. they took that uranium and refined and made into a nuclear weapon. they also got missile systems from china. i do not trust this administration dealing with iran at all. i think we will come out on the losing end. host: cumbersome? -- congressman? guest: i agree. all the things i have said, he said the same thing. host: tweeting in. why don't you lower the sanctions first as a jester, you can put them back? -- as a gesture, you can put them back? guest: once you let the monkeys out of the barrel -- you are
having the wrong getting into a pack. we are going to reward you for being bad. if you raise kids or anything like that, you do not reword that behavior. why do anything when behavior has been that. i do not understand the logic. it seems like a folly to believe will act differently than it has ever acted before in the last 40 years. thatis silly to belief they are going to change all of the sudden just because. host: the new round of sanctions -- guest: we have to deal with the world the way it is. the iranians are bad actors, we should proceed with that in mind . we have been burned. if you go back during the cold war, we have been burned by trusting that the people that we are negotiating with our negotiating in good faith like we are.
not everybody is america. not everybody has honesty and integrity, transparency that we have. whether you talk about the city union, china, north korea. union,t the soviet china, north korea. we trust that do not verify. tot: is the u.s. repaired lead by example and destroy its refinement? guest: why? we are not a sponsor of terrorism. iran is. caller: kristen, -- host: kristen, oklahoma. caller: first of all, i cannot believe that this gentleman, who was lied to when he went to iraq, is not more upset about bush and his administration of our and killing 2,300 soldiers. spending trillions of dollars and bankrupting us.
also, think about the thousands of soldiers coming back maimed. this guy wants to talk about let's not give peace a chance. talk to your buddy issa and find out why the bush administration sent you over there without the proper body armor meant -- proper body armor. look at what the republicans had done to the middle east in the last 10 years. another thing, like my brother said the other day, you always say israel is our closest ally. how many israeli soldiers died in the afghanistan war? how many israeli soldiers died when we were over there -- you are over there fighting in iraq? we talk about israel this, israel that. not join our coalition. you're making fun of president obama, he cannot have anybody follow or get in the coalition. israel should have been the
first ones with the coalition. we do noth israel, want them in our coalition. there are some problems between israel and palestine. it would make things more complex and we would not have been able to get a lot of our partners and allies that we got in iraq and afghanistan if israel had been part of that. they understand that. israel helped us with intelligence and other things. putting them in the coalition and having is really big on the ground in these countries -- putting them in this coalition and having israeli boots on the ground would have done more harm in these countries. president bush did not kill any soldiers, islamic terrorists did. we went to iraq for the right reasons. assad has usedt these chemical weapons that iraq had. they went straight to syria, ass
ad has had been sent. we went in there for the right reasons. we underestimated what we needed to do after the initial attack. over the entire country, what it would take to build it again. i did two tours in iraq. a lot of memory and brothers lost their lives or québec would it -- a lot of my marine brothers lost their lives or came back wounded. because of this president, we do not have a military presence in iraq. iran is unchecked, syria is unchecked, the 10 years we have we do not have- anything to show for it. this president wandered what our military did for 10 long years. host: i want to get your thoughts on the impact the deal might have on peace in the middle east. "the washington post" has a
piece that says turkey, a backer joineda's weapons has ally, andd's calling for a peace conference. is that a positive outcome of the deal? guest: sure, i don't think it is an outcome of the deal. i don't think turkey when he ran to have a nuclear weapon. the nations are going to believe this and maybe they truly believe iran has changed and they are fun to be good from now on. they are hoping they do that so they don't have a nuclear neighbor. i don't think any of these nations when nuclear nations. goes nuclear and saudi arabia and a lot of gulf states go nuclear, they are going to have a nuclear middle east. take how combustible it is now, pre-nuclearization.
think of all these nations that had infighting and all the civil wars and strife going on. give them all nuclear weapons, that is what is going to happen if iran gets a nuke. these other nations will not have one while they don't. a nuclear middle east is not safe for anyone. that cannot be allowed to happen. host: that answers this tweet. it sounds like he is saying congress does not want peace in the middle east or with iran. guest: you have to be a realist. it is not about wanting peace will stops because the u.s. wants peace, does that mean that he's happens. -- does not mean that he's happens. you have to take iran for what they are and how bad they have acted. are they going to change does like that or keep doing what they have been doing? if they get a nuclear weapon, every country in the area will have a nuclear weapon.
the question comes -- how far do you let them enrich? allows them to enrich uranium to a point. it only takes a few months to go from that point to nuclearization. if that is where you want to have -- where iran is two months away from having a nuclear weapon, if that makes everyone happy, that is scary. host: "the washington post" writes sunni arab states do not object to a deal, but they worry about warming ties between tehran and washington. the big worry is that a long- term deal normalizing ties between iran and the u.s. will come at the expense of sunni influence. explain this a little. guest: this administration likes to make friends with our past foes and ignore our allies. this plays into the. not being theile
greatest country in the world, women cannot vote and drive, people still get t stoned. security wise, they have been allies and have stopped a lot of bad things to happening to sharing citizens by intelligence. this administration likes to go out and meet our allies on the side like they have done with egypt and saudi arabia in great britain and dollars. and like to go to our foes say let's appease you. that is how we are going to work. saudi arabia does not want a nuclear iran. dubai,f the gulf states, abu dhabi. the last thing they want is for iran to have nuclear weapons. capitalism and the free market , freestern civilization
elections, women can run for office in jordan and dubai, abu dhabi. these are westernized states. the last thing that they want for their burgeoning economies is to be destabilized by a nuclear iran. if you want to look to peace in the middle east, look to good actors that are doing great things. they are bringing in reforms as fast as they can. reward them, do not reward the bad guys to say they want to wipe iran off the face of the earth. host: iowa, independent caller. caller: i am honored to stick with you. i have a problem with -- in the manner that we are negotiating with these people, it is in a secular way. i do not think a lot of people ,nderstand that the iranians their negotiations are in a radical, religious way. a lot of people do not
understand that to them it is honorable and heroic to successfully lie and deceive the thedel, which is us, and zionist, which is the israelis. we are naïve to think that they do not believe -- that they do not understand what they are doing is actually deceiving us. and totally -- their whole idea through their religion is to destroy us. host: we will have you respond to that. negotiating in a religious way? guest: he is right to a great extent. we arenians have said the great evil and they're going to wipe israel off the face of the earth. in the middle eastern culture, it is looked upon with high regard to get the best deal possible no matter what it takes, that includes lying. that is one reason the gulf
states like to work with the u.s., because we are honest and transparent. they like doing business with us as opposed to their partners or even the communist chinese. they like doing business with people that are honest and transparent. that is an underpinning to these negotiations. once again, if you are willing to blow yourself up and commit suicide in order to blow up other people, you are not a rational person. up other people, you are not a rational person. that is to you are dealing with when you are dealing with uranian's. host: -- iranians. host: you are saying that all middle eastern countries are this way? part of the middle eastern culture to get the best deal that you can, whether you are in the marketplace, haggling over a deal, yes, this is part of the middle eastern culture.
try going into a store here and try to barter for your food, but they still do that in the middle east. the shop owner will say whatever he or she has to to sell something. people barter back and forth and try to get the best deal for each other. iran is the epitome of that, they have lied over and over. they are liars. the arabian government run -- lies all the time. why trust them now? i ask, why trust them now? host: are you speaking from personal experience? guest: i know this is a big generalization, they do business different than we do business in the west. they have markets, they like to barter, they like to do whatever they can, say whatever they can to get the best deal. a reminder -- host: for our viewers, the congressmen served two tours in iraq and he might be a familiar face or name named after his
father, duncan hunter, who retired after 14 consecutive terms. if i could, karzai has the same problem. he is a little bit crazy, is not trustworthy, tries to get the best deal for himself -- not necessarily for his people, but for himself. not aneceptive and honest broker. you see that off and on in these backroom middle eastern countries more than you do anywhere else. host: leading us to the headlines today in the paper about the afghanistan deal that john kerry is trying to negotiate along with nato, getting karzai to sign it. the headline in "the washington post ," is that it is in peril. it has been in peril the
whole time. it is going to hurt the international community's help afghanistan. people will not invest billions of dollars if they do not know where the money is going, if it is just going into the corrupt pockets of an afghan official. i do not know what the problem of karzai is. i truly do not. for all the help, the money, the lives that the international community has given to make themselves safer because afghanistan was the hot spot of international terrorist the pakistan with its nuclear capability, clearly it is a dangerous place, for all the stuff we have done for karzai, he just seems a bit unhinged to me. once again, it is hard to negotiate with someone who can be a little bit crazy, and i think that is karzai's problem. i do not understand how it benefits him to not get the international aid and international support to build up his country that he has been offered in a free or more
westernized way. there is no upside for him except that he gets to keep his kind of dominant hold on the afghan population. host: we have this e-mail -- guest: sure, and there was an uprising from within a few years ago in a run. unfortunately this administration did not do anything to help it. we let it die down. the anian' the iranian -- beat and killed hundreds of iranian regular people students who are protesting so that was a protest not against american sanctions but the heavy handedness of the iranian government. this is not a free country where talking but here. >> host: tracy in minneapolis, republican caller. hello tracy. you are in the air with
republican hungers men duncan hunter. >> caller: with all due respect mr. hunter -- you talked about having a nuclear-free middle east except israel and i think that is the agitated double standard that is causing most of the problems. we should get rid of israel's nuclear weapons first and start from there. that is not exactly why i'm calling. what i notice is when they decide to sell their oil in other currencies and get off the petrodollar there's an immediate drumroll if they are terrorists and rogue states. i could be wrong on this. tell me where i'm wrong because it just really is common to me to see that they want to exchange their oil they immediately we have to go in there and bomb them and take over and set up a central government and get them back on the petrodollar. >> guest: i'm not quite
understanding the last part of your question. i'm sorry. you are saying that when countries try to get off of their oil production in america goes in and bombs them and sets them back up? >> host: selling oil in another currency rather than u.s. dollars, then the united states has an issue with it. >> guest: i have no idea about that. when it comes to israel, israel hasn't threatened anyone. they don't want to use wipe anybody off the face of the earth and they don't promote suicide bombings are promote terrorism throughout the entire world and haven't tried to attack americans on american soil. iran has stalled all of these things is the proxy terrorists. you can't look at germany or france or the united states or israel or any of these free transparent western democracies and compare us with iran. it doesn't work that way and i don't work that way. you have good actors and have
bad actors and you can see people's actions over and over whether they're good people are bad people good nations are detonations and i think you have to be a realist and say we aren't all the same. there are good countries and there are bad countries. to help those bad countries out once again if iran came forth and said we are going to stop it all now today there will be no more centrifuges spinning. you can come in and look at every single thing that we have. we will be totally open, totally transparent. that's fantastic. that's the greatest thing in the world and i think everyone would happy to see that that's not what's happening here so don't be confused to the people watching. don't be confused with what the administration would like you to believe about this deal and the reality of it because they are not opening up their nuclear reactors. they are not opening up saying come on in world we are going to prove that we are not making it their weapons. they are not doing that it also once again why think of bad
actor has all of a sudden become a good actor because you are relieving sanctions? >> guest: american hero tweets and in everyone tries to get the best deal they can. americans also like to barter. maybe even more. galen says the republicans at the white house for years while the problem is going on with iran and they knew it was folly to go to war with iran so they didn't. the other thing we can do is try to negotiate but the problem with represented hunter salute shins is he believes he can negotiate terms that gives iran nothing. that hasn't happened in history even under your party. >> guest: the last thing first. it's not just in the united states best interest that iran doesn't develop nuclear capabilities. it's an entire world in the middle east. it's in everybody's interest so much as the united states and to say that the united states is wrong for trying to have a
destabilized radical islamists nation and not have nuclear weapons and we have to give something up for that to happen, that's silly too. i think we are allowed to ask bad states or tell bad states you don't get to have nuclear weapons. i think maybe people are so far removed from what nuclear capability really means in the massive devastation and destruction and even at that pac brought from mexico into san diego into my district, with that would do to this economy and the united states and what he would do to a security wise. we have to look at this is a very real threat no matter how science fiction does to think about that happening. it could easily happen and it's our job to stop it. >> colon the gene tweets in represented hunter iran has not invaded another country for more than 200 years. they have a right to defend themselves. what do you say to that argument? >> guest: iran has invaded
other countries through proxy terrorists. they are in a whole lot of places doing bad things. they are in afghanistan so they haven't invaded because that is not with these countries do. with these countries do is end when i say countries i'm in countries like afghanistan prewar and iran have proxy wars and a fund to promote and train bad actors in their state bad bad actors in their state and send them out to other countries to destabilize those countries and kill and maim people. husk of the front page of "the new york times" and don't know if you saw this story. groups gain in turmoil across the mideast. violence has presented new opportunities for jihadist groups across the middle east to raise concerns among american intelligence and counterterrorism officials that militants could establish a day since area capable of threatening israel and europe. >> that is absolutely true. in fact iraq and syria
especially, what you have is this. you have a line from syria to iraq. that is how they're getting their weapons and a lot of their fibers. there is no military presence in iraq. >> host: established by asaad. >> guest: al qaeda and iraq and al qaeda in iraq is not into syria. where there is no threat to them whatsoever they are setting up basically al qaeda training grounds like we have in afghanistan. there is no way for us to stop them. there's no way for other countries to do it cause of the civil war and syria. that is wise if you go back to the iraq security limit that never got done, it was a lot more important than people realize because you wouldn't have that rat line between iran and syrian. would have some check on the syrians and al qaeda in syria and iraq.
>> host: let's go to john in breakneck new york read you were in the with congressman hunter. >> i am listening to the astounding misleading statementd falsehoods that this congressman is spouting. i hardly know when to begin to comment. let's take the iraq invasion to begin with. he said it was the right thing and we did the right thing by invading. first of all we went in there under the concept that iraq had weapons of mass destruction which was proven to be false. when that was proven to be false the republicans turned it around and said we were bringing the iraqis democracy. i don't recall the iraqis asking us to bring them democracy. let's go to -- i'm astounded by the comments this man is making.
he sat there and called mattern mattern -- middle easterners liars. he talks about iran supporting organizations in the middle east he does not call the invasion of iraq and invasion of the middle east? >> guest: john, number one if there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq we have gone through this over and over again. it's not talking about a lot and people admit that bush was right and cheney was right and the international intelligence community was right and those weapons of mass destruction and the horrible gases that is sought is used his own people a lot of that came from iraq.
we just didn't get in in time before across it crossed the border from iraq into syria. he iranians do live and they have shown that over and over again. you and i had -- i don't understand why you put faith in a country that has shown over and over again that it will deceive and do anything to promote terrorism to get what they want. >> host: vice president joe wieden meeting with asian leaders in the headline in the "washington post" is that lightning china raises tensions. >> guest: china has developed an air defense identification which the administration has told our military to ignore and
the faa to bring into effect so if you run a commercial airliner you have to take this into account and respond to the chinese. i'm not sure exactly how that works. our military side is not recognizing that. china will try to resort itself in the south china sea. i think we all knew this was happening. they wanted to expand and that is what is happening right now. they are going to push further and a little bit further and a little bit further. every time and this is once again much harder than the iran deal. there's a huge part of our economy and they are becoming more westernized and mort capitalistic while at the same time our military in building the military up and away where it's purely targeted at the american military.
they are building their military up in a protective way against everybody. they are building specific weapon systems that would take out america -- >> host: how should the united states respond? >> guest: by not recognizing it read the defense agencies have said ignore it and i think that's a right thing. >> host: the front page of the financial times this morning to deal with south korea and chinese telecommunications company is a threat to u.s. seoul defense ties, warns senators dianne feinstein and senator menendez. >> guest: senator feinstein i believe is the chairwoman of the intel committee. that means she knows all of the bad things that the chinese are doing to our systems whether it's her banking systems, our water systems, the electrical grid and our military systems not to say that chinese have --
impacted thousands of businesses trying to steal ideas. that is not done by rogue communist agents. that's done by the chinese government to say that they are awol way the chinese company that's going to install the back on for the south korea telecommunications network that should be a scary thing for south korea in the united states because we need security there to too. his weight -- as long as we are in south korea helping north korea there ought to be some safety in who they choose to do their telecommunications. there are a lot of other countries. there are european countries, and the united states has the ability to do this and also other asian companies that are communist chinese. >> host: what's going on with the asia-pacific region right now and our relationship with the asian countries? >> guest: i think it's like
everything. when you push out more and more you encounter more that you'd didn't know before. we have now shifted to the asian region and we are going to have a 60 half-or he makes and 60% of our military forces will will be in the area supposed to the middle east and 40% in the middle east and the east end i think as that happens we will find out new things. i think china and their allies are going to respond to those pushing out and i think that's what's happening. >> host: congressman duncan hunter, thank you for talking with our viewers. appreciate the conversation this morning. >> guest: thank you.
small business owners testified wednesday before the house small business committee on the effect of the health care law. this is an hour 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i called this meeting to order. as we are all well aware the health care law requires businesses that employ 50 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees to offer health insurance or pay an employer mandate penalty or a tax.